Secret Service probing conservative blogger's call for Obama assassination

Uh, how about attaching a source for the threat you claim was made against President Bush?

Well, there are a bunch of threats toward Bush documented here
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

i've seen this link posted quite a few times the last few days on the vine.

1. You source a site called "zombietime"?
2. THAT ISNT THE POINT! Threats happen, we should all be condemning every one of them, regardless of the president, not bringing up past ones.

I did condemn this one and do condemn all of them.

My entire point was to counter those who have selective memory and don't want to remember that there was virulent and threatening rhetoric directed against Bush for years.

And regardless of who hosts the website, it's not as though the photos he hosts are fictional.

Racism and fascism are totally different issues. Fascism is the most over used and least understood term in the English language. Fascism does require a huge amount of nationalism, but this isn't necessarily racist. I suggest you read up a bit on Fascism before you start throwing that word around at everything you don't like. Wikipedia has a very thurough article on the subject, you should read up on it, you'll be very surprised what you learn (hint: its neither left-wing or right-wing).

Every President gets death threats, it goes with the job. Some are empty, some are serious, all of them have to be investigated. What makes this one particularly disturbing, however, is what it reveals about the hysterical level reached by a debate on a policy issue that's wildly out of proportion to what was at stake. There's no "government take-over" of health care in this bill, no "socialized medicine," and certainly no "death panels."

I think the racist tone of this Twitterer's remarks also reveal what's behind a lot of the personal hostility against Obama in a lot of cases, and why the Republican party was so adamant that they had to defeat this health care measure rather than work productively with the Democrats. They wanted to destroy his Presidency, as Jim De Mint admitted in exactly so many words, and now people like this jackass are in a state of uncontrollable rage that they failed to do it.

Bajee,

Ummmm, no fascism and racism are very closely related. Fascism is a rabid form of nationalism and racism. It requires a delusional level of patriotism and racial supremacy. That is the definition of fascism.

I agree that the term is overused, along with socialism and communism, but in this case it truly does apply. It is the definition and not hyperbole.

Random: I looked at the website you linked, and did see evidence of lefties calling for Bush's death.

The big problem I see with this right/left, Obama/Bush comparison is that the Health Care Bill will save lives, and Bush's deeds have cost so very many. Thus, the popularly stated "He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword", is apropos for one but not for the other.

oh, so would that means our other president from Illinios was a fascist? By definition, not properly taught history? I mean Lincoln was much like the many of the people of the day, white, racial supremist...

He that lives by socialism dies from socailism

I guess we will see if it saves lives, but it doesn't do anything for anyone for a few years..

radom-digital...

the left doesn't care about the bush threats, we don't have a 'right' to bear 'rope' that they'd like to take away... associate a 'shot' or gun and it gets serious.

So, if the blogger said 'lynch' then that person could be a fascist (this way you can associate the means w/ historically beibg racial)... But, would you still need the republicans apologize for that too?

Nationalism is usually tied together with racism, but racism doesn't need to be there for nationalism to exist. Nazism, is clearly very racist, but Nazism was only a very specific breed of Fascism.

dude, im a lefty too.

no kidding.. that's why I was pointing it out to screennames of opposite view points...

The means of 'murder' doesn't change the outcome, when scum wishes to commit the crime.

#2.7: why the Republican party was so adamant that they had to defeat this health care measure rather than work productively with the Democrats.

I've never seen a comment anywhere that expresses this so perfectly. You running for office? Can I vote for you?

It's a strange situation... Most point that NO republicans voted for it, But it wasn't only R that voted NO, there were D that voted no also... (the only Bi Partisan side of this Bill was for NO) It's also odd how there was no Public funding for abortion, but they still needed an Executive order to ensure it. Because it did allow for the funding... Also odd, Stupak announced that his state received some funding from the Transportation Dept for fixing up a few airports... hmm those were the 4 votes that put them over the top...

why the Republican party was so adamant that they had to defeat this health care measure rather than work productively with the Democrats.

How do you "work productively with" those who ridicule and/or ignore your input and have the attitude "work with me on my way - don't waste my time with any of your ideas"??

Personally, I consider the "other" plan (opposite this one) as much more beneficial, "automatic", flexible, and economical - but these are anathema to the current idiocracy.

To top it off - I am less repulsed by the law itself, than by the methods used to get there: it feels dirty and disgraceful - on a good day.

I haven't been more ashamed of our government at any other time - even if I have been angry with it for decades. There aren't but three people on the Hill that I would consider keeping, come the next elections; it's that bad.

RCapNY; we know Congress can trump an Executive Order - a legal one, anyway - and if it doesn't have a good basis in existing LAW, it can be trounced by SCOTUS. I doubt such a flimsy thing bought the votes - it was more likely Stupak & Co sold out for the money

I much as I'm against the new bill, It wouldn't be as bothersom if there wasn't soo much BS to get it to pass...

In my 'honest opinion', I believe the Admin. needs to amend this to a complete single payer gov't run system for it work it any means... Very scary. I think it's been a hidden plan. They have to realize that making the states implement the system and mandate a 'private purchase' isn't really constitutional, but if they make it Gov't only, it would become a mandatable tax...

I came to my conclusion when I heard several elected liberals say it's a "starter home", that we can add too and amend to get there... But, they haven't mentioned these words in a few weeks/ months. My guess is to hide their true intent. Many of the strong Libs had no interest in this Bill w/ ouy a single payer option, but jumped aboard hoping to drag it further 'left'.

we shall see where it goes.

Aleucius, the Democrats made a lot of concessions to Republican demands early on in the process. But it soon became obvious that no matter what they got, the Republicans would give nothing in return, and wouldn't vote for the bill anyway. Meanwhile, the only alternative they offered for months was "scrap it and start over." As though they'd behave any differently the second time around!

The process used to pass this bill was perfectly legal, ethical, and in complete conformity to established practice in the House and Senate -- unlike the process used to get Bush's prescription drugs bill passed. Sorry, but saying that the other side didn't play fair because they beat you fair and square just doesn't cut it.

RCapNY,

This is one "lefty/socialist" that you will have trouble getting his guns from. However, you start using them as political intimidation props and I will be applauding the police when they take them.

I agree with you on that. I'm not giving up my guns, I haven't done anything like these sign carriers/tweeters, etc...

Oh, I'm not giving up my guns either, that's why I don't support the NRA, they support guns that kill people, I have hunting weapons, if you can't protect your self with a single shot 20 gauge, you couldn't defend an ant hill with a squirt gun filled with gasoline.

Blayde...

That has to be one of the more retarded and ignorant things I've heard in a while... "that's why I don't support the NRA, they support guns that kill people"... Where is that said by the NRA? I don't recall the NRA or any other "firearms" based organization supporting criminals. Is that a magical one shot 20 gauge that stops more than one person breaking into your home?

I can't wait to hear your false reasonses in your next response...

The NRA supports logic that will get my hunting weapons taken away. I do not support people that want to have hand guns and assault weapons unless they are willing to let the FBI know where that weapon is at all times. I am only looking out for my interests on this one, I'll admit that. I understand that some people like to collect guns and I am sympathetic but because of the risks involved, close scrutiny is needed to protect the public.

The 20 Gage ejects the shells over your shoulder and I can reload fast. I have a trap grade 12 guage Zoli over and under and a number of pumps. I prefer the single shot.

What happens once your "pump action" shotgun gets termed an "assault weapon"? They are already attempting to term "semi auto" shotguns as assault weapons... If you can show me one "gun" law that has turned a criminal into a good citizen I'll listen. The meaning of the term "assault weapon" has been changed 3 times in the past 100 years alone.

The criminals laugh at the fact that we can barely own a 'look-a-like', but they actually have illegal full auto and select fire ak-47/74's. I mean these weapons have been heavily monitored since the 1920's. They have been illegal to import since the 1980's, but they are here. So, why are the laws being enacted now only effecting me and you. Crime didn't change in a positive direction during the clinton AWB.

Real Assualt weapons require a class 3 license and tax stamp... the great majority of legal purchases (the type the NRA backs) require Background checks... The only weapons that are NOT tracable are those purchased on the 'black market'...

As a matter of Fact, here in NY all Pistols purchased require a fired shell casing to be sent into the state for ballistic's matches for future crimes... Not once has there been a case where this 'program' has helped to solve anything. Most people that commit the crimes we read about, rarely legally purchase the firearm, let alone for the same reason you or I do.

I think it's time, unfortunately, that our Gov't shed some blood, kicked down some doors and remove the actual criminals.

Each and every Law abiding Individual has the Right to self defense and to "keep and Bear arms". We also have the Right to privacy. If I do something where these rights should be revoked, fine. Until then... Let's just live our lives. Peace!

What happens once your "pump action" shotgun gets termed an "assault weapon"?

Exactly what I am afraid of and why I don't support the NRA. The rest is hyperbole.

Your Pump action becoming an "assault weapon" would have nothing to do w/ the NRA. But it would be do to the fact that the criminals would choose that weapon as there tool for work. the gov't simply won't stop, and won't realize restricting you or I makes no difference.

But you don't have your 2nd amendment right's just protecting your home or to go hunting, but to be able to responsibly and effectively oppose an oppressive gov't. A blunderbus might have been relatively effective in the 1700's, as a pump shotgun would be today... Obviously I don't expect to ever use one for the latter.

I can't accept that my weapons, in a safe (or in my possession), are a risk to another person's life in any way, simply because they exist.

It's the Gov't leaders that use the hyperbole, too bad too many people listen w/out checking the facts.

RCapNY,

Again, I don't think they should be banned. I don't have a problem with select fire and fully automatic having more rigorous requirements, but they should still be accessible to law abiding citizens. I think they should have restrictions on when and where you can use these features. I will not agree to the use of fully automatic weapons as self-defense for a mugging. This is irresponsible behavior in my opinion and I will not support it.Fully automatic on a city street and I think the person should be locked up with the 3 time DWI driver. One well placed shot is better than a 100 round spray.

As for my pump, you will notice that I use buck shot or turkey shot. Both have a severely limited range compared to a slug. As for talk about taking semi-automatics, part of the consideration for this is the time wasted arguing for unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The average person doesn't know the difference and we do ourselves the disservice when we confuse the difference in a stubborn attempt for fully automatic weapons. Why don't we just equate muzzleloaders with nuclear weapons while we are at it.

Remember KISS. The only thing most ignorant people can comprehend is the simple approach. If the difference is subtle we lose.

If one wants to shoot targets in a controlled area, I have no problem.

I pretty much agree with every point you made in this last post.

I'd also mention that out current laws seem to coencide with our views of "legal" firearms. I'd find it extremely disheartening if I couldn't pass my grandfather's M1 carbine from WWII, to one of my children... or any semi auto rifle / pistol I own.

Tim, I think we have similar views, it is hard not to see the mechanical beauty in guns but there is nothing to be gained for trying to say that their purpose is for self protection. A reasonable gun owner, like RCapNY should get to have his guns but it is, the nutty ones that I am worried about.

RCapNY, you must admit that some people shouldn't have guns because they, don't know enough about them to be safe, or they want to use them to do bad things? I think you should work with us we aren't on completely different sides.

I totally support RCap's right to own his guns no matter what class they fall into and to pass them to his heirs as he sees fit.

I do not think anyone has the right to use a fully automatic weapon in a populated area for self defense. Other than that I am open to negotiation.

Tim at 2.31 - Hmmm. But - what does the Constitution of the United States actually say on that issue? Is it truly describing the type of gun or its specific features or its functions?

I don't know that it is.

There are definitely irresponsible people from all walks of life. Some should not be in possession of car keys let alone a gun.

Part of my concern about 'firearms' is; they were once a very integral party of our culture and an icon of freedom. Kids would be taught 'firearms' saftey at an early age in all areas. Now, as populations grow and ideologies change, the care to properly educate ourselves, kids, friends etc, has slipped away and the 'ignorance' of those that don't 'like' them, give some of us a bad name.

Stay Safe.

RCapNY - at 2.33 - I think there is much truth in what you say. These activities require time for instruction. That is what is sorely missing. Some hand these instruments to their children and say, "Go for it."

Children require instruction and welcome instruction and discipline. We are responsible for showing them how to use everything. If parents fail children, parents have only themselves to blame.

I am proud to have raised two responsible young men.

I was robbed at gun point by a wwII era, automatic hand gun and I knew the implications of the weapon, instantly. I don't want a bunch of guys like the guys that robbed me having such weapons. They were not to bright, the guy that robbed me had herring bone coveralls on and the police found a car around the corner with a pair of herring bone coveralls in the back seat, it belonged to a convicted criminal that lived in the house. It was the guy that robbed me. I'd like to make sure that guys like this don't get guns. I have trouble thinking that I might be in the same bar with a guy that has one, who likes to jump to conclusions even when he is sober.

Blayde,

I was shot at once when I was 17... The guy was arrested/turned himself in and was charged w/ menacing.yay. (supposively, he thought I was the person that broke a window) I was unarmed and happy w/ the outcome (no holes). this guy was 6'2'' 235lbs, I was 5'10" 145 lbs at the time... I couldn't have had much better luck either way that evening.

I don't want those people to have a gun either. Unfortunately, even if our 'society' outlawed or banned guns completely, those individuals would still be in the market for them... 'Organized Crime' will find a way to "stay open for business'' and chances are the person that would pull a gun for little reason would just as easily stab you in the back or slice at you anyway...

RCapNY at 2.36 -

That's right. We do not get to decide who may or may not own a gun. Regrettably, you were a victim of a violent crime that according to your description sounds as though the perpetrator got off easy. He was charged with a lesser offense than attempted murder.

Remember organized crime can occur in the face of and from behind the bench.

Did you appeal?

No appeal, but I did get some money for 'damages'.

I haven't seen a gun used in a crime (1st hand) since that day in my town... That doesn't keep me from legally ccw... We have the 'duty to retreat' in public though in NY.

A Sergeant's Mom,

The Constitution says the same thing about using a fully automatic weapon in a populated area as it does about falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. You have the right until it violates the rights of others. One can not violate the rights of a criminal in the act of committing a crime. imho.

I am very well aware about what the Constitution of the United States says.

Can you show us by providing a link, please.

Thank you.

A link to a ruling, no since the SCOTUS has never take a case for repealing the ban on fully automatic weapons that was instituted back in the 30s when Tommy guns were outlawed.

Other than that fact, it is just logic that spitting out 30 rounds in a populated area is bound to cause injury to innocent bystanders through the use of excessive force. It is overkill for self defense, pun intended.

Are you really defending Constitutionality of using of fully automatic weapons on the streets of our cities?

As a member of the NRA and responsible user of firearms, I can not support that position.

Tim at 2.41 - I empathize with your support of logic, and value your opinion, but in terms of facts, well...

We have to back our claims with cited sources in order for them to be considered valid.

Take care.

They were teetering anyway.

Mr. Obama's victory in the election was a blow to their pride, which neo-cons cannot countenance.

They were counting on Mr. Obama's defeat with this issue, turning him into a lame duck for the rest of this cycle. This didn't happen, which -- again -- was a blow to their pride.

To them, they have been victimized all over again, and they are now acting like spoiled children. I've never seen so much whining...and I've taught 8th graders.

Rev. Wright is a Christian preacher. Most of them scream and rant on Sundays. Shrug.

When John Kerry lost the election there were plenty of people on the left threatening to move to another country so both sides have a tendency to "lose it"

Please cite one left wing blogger or personality that SERIOUSLY called for the assassination of Bush. I am not talking about some comedian making a joke during their act about
Cheney and a 'hunting accident'. I am talking about a Maddow or Franken calling for someone to put one in Bush's head as a service to America.

And there IS a difference between we would be better off if Barbara got an abortion back then and "take the shot if you get it".

Tim...

why an abortion? i could have been 'B-J' night, instead on conception night... No love! try to find a loving way to alter the outcome. lol

There are a few osts below that show protesters wishing bush, unwell.

RCap,

lol. Yes it could have been. I don't have a problem with the signs that are based on policy differences with Obaqma taken to the extreme for effect. I don't have a problem with them for any politician on policy differences. That is political speech.

Calling for someone to take the shot if they have it is the mob boss putting a hit on their opposition. That is different than political speech.

There was certainly more than one voice screaming racial slurs at Congressman Lewis and sexual slurs at Congressman Frank on Saturday and Sunday, and it happened more than once. I saw more than one of those signs that said "If Brown can't stop it, maybe a Browning can," with a picture of a handgun. Don't tell me that every single one of those signs was carried by an ACORN plant, although I've heard that excuse a few dozen times in the last couple of days.

I think there are people in the southern states who haven't accepted the outcome of the Civil War, and are still hoping to reverse it. And we'd probably be better off without them.

trex-138069 #4.4 - Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:07 PM CDT

And we'd probably be better off without them.

A Texas cowboy gets pulled over by a {insert Union state name here} State Trooper for speeding.
The trooper started to lecture the cowboy about his speeding and, in
general, began to throw his weight around to try to make the cowboy
feel uncomfortable.

Finally, the trooper got around to writing out the ticket. As he was doing that, he kept swatting at some flies that were buzzing around his head. The cowboy says: "Y'all havin' some problem with circle flies?"

The trooper stopped writing the ticket and said, "Well yeah, if that's what they're called. But I never heard of circle flies." "Well, sir," the cowboy replies, "Circle flies hang around ranches. They're called circle flies because they're almost always found circling around the back end of a horse."

The trooper says, "Oh," and goes back to writing the ticket. But, a moment later he stops and says, "Are you callin' me a horse's ***?"

"No, sir," the cowboy replies. "I have too much respect for law enforcement to call y'all a horse's ***."

"That's a good thing," the trooper says and goes back to writing the ticket.

After a long pause, the cowboy, in his best Texas drawl says:

"Hard to fool them flies though."

Don't Mess with Texas!!!!!

I have no desire to mess with Texas. I would, in fact, be delighted if it were a separate country, and we had strict border control.

Trex...

Learn the Truth about "the war for southern independence" or 'civil war'... Obviously your statement was made out of ignorance and I'm a lifelong 'yankee'.

the southern states legally dissolved their union w/ the north (as per it's constitutional right). the people of the south had a representative Gov't working on their behalf. The 'civil war' is probably the very worst instence of out Gov't using tyrannical rule to hold power over a free people.

our very own President Lincoln allowed attrocities against free people via his army knowingly and willingly. His Own Col. JB Turchin was court martialed in June, 1862 for some of the worst crimes imaginable during the war (to women / girls/ slaves) In Sept 1862 (about 2 months later) Lincoln promoted him to Brig. Gen and set him upon the southern people again!

Are were possibly a better stronger people because of the outcome of the 'civil war'? I hope so. But, to not completely understand the reasoning for the war is a disservice to our entire country, and every individual that loves it.

The dispute was over whether or not it WAS legal to dissolve the union with the north, and the CSA lost that argument. On the plus side, that means we don't have a poverty stricken failed state with a South-Africa style apartheid regime on our doorstep. On the negative side, it means we're still stuck with them.

Trex...

Interesting. How was it a "Union" at all. If the Union it is held together by force against the will of Free people? The Soviet Union, was a union of sort, but you aren't ready to admit we did use oppressive force to maintain our "union" as they have.

Upto 80% of Southerners/ Confederate soldiers didn't have slaves. There was actually more money made via slaves by the North than by the people in the south. The south actually had more resources, from farmlands to railroads and certainly would not have been poverty stricken. Although after the 'civil war' The North imposed a "Redistribution of the Wealth" (wow, sound like something of current politics), which is what put the south in the situation you associate them with.

Lincoln himself looked favorably upon apartied style politcs towards the black race. His first choice was to "send them back at all costs" to africa. The emancipation proclamation was to free the southern slaves in hopes that the soldiers would run home to secure their 'property/slaves', but as I mentioned above around 80% of the confederate soldiers didn't need to worry about that. The South was greatly out numbered and fought for their freedom w/ their blood, not for slavery.

Your views seem to be jaded and flawed by your lack of self education. Obviously "to the winner go the spoils" and get's to write the history, but there is more than what you were taught... rednecks and slavery weren't as 'in play' as we were taught.

The founders, "Washington" specifically, stated that you can vote at the ballot box and if that doesn't ensure your freedom, you can vote w/ your feet... meaning move to a 'free state'. That's basically what the south attempted, using our constitutional laws. This is after the northern congressmen wouldn't bend to represent their veiws too...

I am quite familiar with the varying (and invariably self-serving) interpretations of Civil War history from the various sides. I'm also well aware that Lincoln's views about race were those common in his time. But we weren't talking about the issue of abolishing slavery, repatriating the slaves or integrating them into society, or any of those other debates. We were talking specifically about whether or not there's a right to take your dollies and your dishes and go away if the meanies in the North keep out-voting you in Congress, despite a system of representation rigged in favor of rural and southern areas. And that dispute, bluntly, was settled by force, and the verdict of the Civil War was that no, there is not.

It's just a shame that we've come to a point in politics when an elected official only represents his/her "party line" and not so much the people.

Here in NY we have upstate Reps (D), that have always been 'pro-gun owner' (keep in mind we still have the Clinton AWB in effect here and many other laws that other states don't) and won election on close votes based on their 2nd amendment stance, now once in office have completely flip-flopped! Why? The crime hasn't gone up. But that's the (D) Liberal view... It makes it a lot harder to 'trust' your politician on either side I guess.

There is another that sent out an email that he voted for the HCB because 25% of the people he heard from said they were for it... and the other 75%. hmmm.

Probably, about 25% for, 25% against, 25% against without additional restrictions, and 25% for only with some additions/expansions. Just my guess on the various opinions. actual numbers are totally fictitious and purposefully equal for illustration purposes.

And yes, some of you did call for Pres. Bush to be "taken out" several times.

Details, please -- who, when, where?

When I advocated Bush's being 'taken out,' it was meant via impeachment, not a bullet.

I'm totaally ok with his disliking Obama, even hating him, and wanting him out of office (I came to that same feeling about Bush, the longer he stayed in, and avoided any responsibility for his disastrous actions and policies), but advocating assassinations is beyond the pale, and this tweet can NOT be interpreted accurately in any other way.

Should even be beneath folks to even defend it, but here you are. And you wonder why can't see eye to eye?

Gnostix1: Details, please -- who, when, where?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure thing....Got LOTS of pictures for you and everything!

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621 (scroll down all the way to the bottom for more pics)

Here's another one...

http://hiphoprepublican.com/general/2009/09/16/pictures-death-threats-from-liberals-toward-bush-aggh-how-the-left-forgets/

And another one....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/03/usa.internationalcrime

Got plenty more....So, as I said, QUIT YOUR WHINING children!!! I know you won't because as libs that's all you know....

Fred Evil: Should even be beneath folks to even defend it, but here you are. And you wonder why can't see eye to eye?

------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, Fred, and what part of this didn't you understand:

"I don't condone of this guy's actions...."

You may want to re-read my earlier post as I don't think you read well. And, for your information, we can't see eye to eye because you all want more entitlements and more spending just so you can feel good about your sorry selves!! That, sir, is why we can't see eye to eye. I actually don't dislike this pres on a personal level (since I don't know him personally), I just hate his left-wing agenda for this nation. Unlike you, who seem to just love the guy for the guy without examining where he's headed with all of this, I can think for myself!

"because you all want more entitlements and more spending just so you can feel good about your sorry selves!!" No, actually. I wanted this bill to pass because my nephew's life may depend on it. He has a rare genetic condition that is going to require lifetime treatment, but he's already 22 years old, and soon his parents' insurance wouldn't have covered him. And then it would have been impossible for him to buy insurance with a "pre-existing condition." I also supported it because the current health care system in this country is as grotesquely expensive as it is inefficient, and would put the country into bankruptcy if it continued. The CBO expects the health care bill to REDUCE the deficit. Isn't that what Republicans are supposed to support? Aside, of course, from Bush's wars paid for on the national credit card?

Gnostix1

And yes, some of you did call for Pres. Bush to be "taken out" several times.

Details, please -- who, when, where?

Well, it was proven!!!!!! No reply? Figures................

I never doubted it jackjack, there are wackos on both sides of the aisle. Just because one side does it, doesn't mean it's ok for the other.

Galileo - " Yeah, Fred, and what part of this didn't you understand:

"I don't condone of this guy's actions....""

Kind of the whole thing. "I don't condone of this guy's actions" is simply poor English, it doesn't make sense! And as I told Jack, just because one side does it, doesn't mean it's ok for the other. I condemn it when a leftie does the same thing, why won't you condemn the right? All I'm looking for is the OUTRAGE you SHOULD have.

Yes but you have a record of carrying out these threats. Kennedy, Lincoln, King, Dr. Tiller, and how many civil rights activists, gays, and blacks were lynched, shot, beaten or dragged behind pickup trucks. When was the last assassination attempt, let alone success, by the left? How many Tea baggers have been dragged to their deaths by a prius?

Racial diversity?

Do we know the race of the blogger?

$5 says he's NOT black...another $5 says he's whiter than a Native American

Whenever I hear someone assume that it's a "white-guy", It makes me remember the guy openly carrying an AR-15 in AZ when the President was in town. MSNBC was all over the crazy racist for bringing a gun, then found out the guy was black... Too often people talk w/ out the facts... It's sickening when certain action are associated w/ skin tone. that's racism in the Media...

So one black man acting like a dick makes your argument for the entire right wing racist @!$%# we are seeing - please when i was at school one of the skin heads was black - he was just thick - one idiot does not take away from the wider argument and you know it is disingenuous to suggest that -

WHAT? I didn't argue anything. I stated a fact. I actually thought it was funny, it showed MSNBC's Chris Matthews has/had racism in his "heart & mind"... Actually he, a 2nd time mentioned that he could now see Obama as Post racial after his State of the Union address. Racism isn't some right wing thing...

You stated one fact, that you had schoolyard black skinhead... Why does it have to be the 'entire right wing' are racist? I'm not a right winger, but why do you say that? Are all left wingers socialists?

Just speak to the facts... whoever did this is an ash whole. & may be his own mother / father/ racist.. we don't know

Why does it have to be the 'entire right wing' are racist? I'm not a right winger, but why do you say that? Are all left wingers socialists?

I distinguish between right wing and conservative and IMO the right wing are racist. I would imagine that most left wing would be proud to be called socialist. but hey I am in the UK where Obama is a conservative and the GOP are very far to the right and the left are actually socialist - I don't believe that America has very many left wing politicians at all and certainly not in the white house. BTW I believe my point still stands:)

The current Admin and congress are consider themselves as Liberal Progressives (run on the D ticket) that are pushing many socialist agenda's... far from conservative american ideals. Keep in mind our Gov't was designed to stay away from this path...

"the right wing are racist"

All Christians? All right leaning independents? Half the country racist and half the country righteous?

Bubba,

soph is speaking from the european perspective which has dealt w/ fascism / communism etc more directly and often... The right wing there is a differnet beast to an extent.. This is the only problem I find when people from other coutries 'chime in' on eachother poitics... there are several different meanings for the same vocabular term that don't bring the same conclusion.

Send that POS to Vietraq-unarmed and with no body armor!

Why do you want to make him a KBR contractor ? :)

Why do you want to make him a KBR contractor ? :)

Great point or even Blackwater...ooops I meant XE

As David Plouffe told Rove this weekend, get out your "Mission Accomplished" banner out. It is likely to be as accurate as the first time.

Might? I think his arrest sheet counts as his membership card.

After the Secret Service gets done with him.....he's going to think an enema is foreplay!

'crooks'

you can't let them do that water boarding and torture... the Libs/Dems would be Hypocrits, like all the politicians! then they'd have to add Obama/ biden to their Bush / cheney roll call for life sentences... They could never be responsible enough to admit their boys were in the wrong...

The last time I checked with the founders they suggested that ALL people, not just the well off, were entitled to LIFE.

T'weren't suggestion: "all men are created equal" and "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit" are unequivocable statements. However - there is nothing that guarantees it stays equal, nor that any part of the People, or government are obligated to make it that way.

In fact - it is more of a mandate to stay out of the way.

How come you limited it to LIFE? How about Liberty and Pursuit? Of course, anyone who holds them as equally important is highly unlikely to support the shenanigans of government , anyway. . . .

Is that what happens if my life threaten, via words on a blog/tweet..? As I said earlier, the person should be investigated.

I've had a man shoot in my direction (w/out provacation) and verbally threaten me and the person only got charged w/ "Menacing"... he didn't even legally own the firearm...

GET REAL!

And if it was MCcain or palin we would have 24/7 coverage, an arrest, placement in a secret prison I mean guantanomo all done because it is the patriotic thing to do.

Funny if this would have happened under bush he would have been in jail before the story was dry...my how times have changed....Although I didn't agree with bush or his crony I mean cheney I would not wish, desire, or say anything like this idiot did.

Yes, H.C., that is the best they've got. It's the be-all and end-all of the left's arguments with anyone who doesn't see things their way. All you have to do is read through this thread; I have, and chuckled to myself in disgust at the absolute arrogance and ignorance of quasi-intellects like "jade-log" who have little to offer in the way of intelligent discourse but much to offer in unqualified--or falsely qualified--opinions. Perhaps posting a response to nearly every comment as if one owns the thread, or Newsvine itself, will make up what is lacking...

Also, if Obama were to be assassinated, it would have nothing to do with his race...though it's certain that if anyone but a black person did it, it would be judged that way. It would most likely be because--like Dubya before him--he has absolutely no respect for the Constitution of the United States. Neither does Biden, Reid, Pelosi, or 50% of the sitting Congress...this is evidenced by the passage of Obamacare, which at its core violates the Constitution by requiring citizens--for the first time in U.S. history--to purchase something for no other reason than being born. Anyone willing to assassinate the President is an idiot for a number of reasons, the least of which being that he would only be replaced by another usurper of the Constititution.

Assassination, obviously, is not the answer. However, whether the left likes it or not, there were provisions put into the Constitution at its inception intended to safeguard against a tyrannical government. Last night our government, spearheaded by a despot and supported by corrupt lackeys, took a major step in that direction.

As far as race is concerned, I couldn't care less if Obama was purple with yellow polka-dots. My problem with him is that he's shown in less than one year that he (and his administration) is arguably the most corrupt president this nation has seen to date, and that situation is not likely to improve now that he's managed to bully and coerce his way to his first big "win". Too bad it's not a win for the American people.

Welcome to the United States of Chicago, everyone.

The "tyrannical" conduct you're whining about is what's known as the democratic process. The House of Representatives took a vote, according to long-established procedures, and your side lost. I didn't see any abuse of the process here, except perhaps the childish delaying tactics that the Republicans used to stretch out debate into the wee hours so that they could whine that the bill was being passed in the "dead of night." Now if you want to talk about abuses, let's talk about how the Republicans passed Bush's Medicare Part D a few years back, keeping the vote open for hours while the party leaders twisted arms and openly offered bribes and pork projects.

And don't tell me that you're so worked up about making insurance affordable to uninsured people but requiring them to buy it. Are you threatening to sue your state for requiring you to have auto insurance? The truth is you thought you could turn this bill into a rematch of the 2008 Presidential election, and you lost again. Cry me a river.

Well, there is no state that requires you to purchase auto insurance as a pre-requisite for simply residing within that state, so the auto insurance argument is a false analogy. There are plenty of legit arguments to be made both for and against the health care bill (soon to be law), so let's avoid the less logical points.

Then here's another analogy for you. The Federal government requires employers to provide safe and sanitary working conditions for their employees. That isn't mandated in the Constitution, and was not always law. The "Robber Baron" capitalists of the gilded age fought laws like that tooth and nail, arguing that they were, yes, tyrannical, an infringement on their precious freedom, a violation of the capitalist free market that made their goods less competitive. Do you want to repeal them, and go back to the days when appalling numbers of factory workers died in gruesome accidents, or contracted black lung from the polluted air they had to breathe all day? Do you want to go back to the days when entrepreneurs were free to sell "health tonics" containing radium, or when girls were employed by watch factories to paint the numbers onto watch faces with radium paint? Even after the girls began to die of cancer after a couple of years of work? Of course the government limits our freedom to do some things in order to protect the public. Wasn't "keeping us safe" the mantra of the right wing that was used to excuse every genuinely tyrannical abuse of the law by the Bush administration? And why do you now find that "keeping us healthy" isn't a satisfactory reason for reforming the insurance industry through a perfectly Constitional process of legislation?

Well, I hardly want to turn this into a health care debate (although, since I did bring it up with the auto insurance analogy discussion, I should at least take the opportunity to reply to your statement).

There's an awful lot of space between the hideous conditions of the 19th century on one hand and an absolute governmental control on the other extreme. I have significant reservations about the health care bill, both from a philosophical (I hate the idea of a mandate) to fiscal grounds. That does NOT mean that I am against reform; it simply means that I don't like a great deal of what's in this bill.

That being said, the republican party had years to work on health care, and they only thing they really did with that time was to add to the deficit by creating the prescription/Part D program...

Frankly, I'm not sure what (if anything) is the "optimum" solution for healthcare. Every single possible solution leaves some people out, or creates a generational ponzi scheme, or reduces freedom. I've by and large kept out of the debate on health care reform for just that reason.

"Absolute government control" my foot. All this bill does is impose some limitations on the insurance industry, just as many laws impose limits on what businesses can and can't do. There is no single-payer, no government option; government isn't taking over the health insurance business by any stretch of the imagination, only acting to curb some unacceptable practices like cutting off care to a cancer patient because she had a "pre-existing condition," namely acne.

Randommilitary,

Take a look at my newsvine article on Health care reform. Keep in mind that I want Medicare in that article to be as independent as possible from the interference of the federal government. The only role of the government is as a check on policy not a source.

#25: The fact that Twitter removed that post in my view will make it harder for law enforcement to investigate it.

You raise a valid point. We see things like this and our first reaction is to pull it down, stifle it, condemn it, hide it... but, the truth is that the enemy we can see is far less dangerous than the one we cannot see or even know exists. As bad as it was for the creep to threaten to assassinate the President, it would be far worse for someone to decide to do it and keep quiet until after the deed is done.

I think we all need to rethink this knee-jerk reaction we have to blotting out the speech we loathe, and let the scum speak up, while the law sneaks up on them and then puts an end to the crap they spout.