Check this video out.
Apparently, Mr. Fitzpatrick thinks that President Obama has no legal right to be president. In addition, he thinks that Mr. Pettway has no legal right not to convene a grand jury in Monroe County, Tennessee to indict Mr. Obama. Because I know there is NO WAY any of this is racist, I'll leave that angle alone. Plus, the story gets even better.
After this video was released, Darren Huff "rose up" and demanded Fitzpatrick's release. Huff got in his truck -- emblazoned with the Oath Keepers logo on the side -- and drove to Monroe County with a Colt. 45 and an AK-47. Huff made it clear that he was armed and that he planned to go to the courthouse and arrest county officials -- who he called "domestic enemies of the United States engaged in treason"-- in order to turn them over to state police to put in jail. Not surprising, Huff had no success in arresting any Monroe County officials. Perhaps they were busy helping out with the flooding in other parts of the state (see: something that actually matters in reality as opposed to psychoville).
The next day, however, Mr. Huff starting talking about his experience in a broadcast. Huff said he told the county troopers: "I can probably think of five different ways to Sunday that you guys have violated [your] oath," by stopping him and trying to temporarily confiscate his weapons. "So the reality is I could place you under citizen's arrest for doing this. But we're trying to play nice here."
Probably not the wisest move in Mr. Huff's career as this broadcast got the attention of the FBI who said he had the means and intent to cause violence (see: no shit). They have since placed him under house arrest.
I predict we are going to be seeing a lot more of this in the next two years especially if the GOP sees minimal gains in the midterms as I predict they will. The question is how much of it has to happen before I get a conservative on here to say, "OK. Our side is worse. We do have a problem."
13 comments:
Have you read Oliver Willis? (www.oliverwillis.com) You'd like him, he's a brainless demagogue like you - might be able to get some additional material for your blog. Any time some event happens that he disagrees with, his knee jerk reaction is that conservatives support it, conservatives probably caused it, and oh yeah, conservatives are racist. You guys are two peas in a pod!
Somebody tries to blow up times square and you talk about this moron?
The problem with your Cult meme is that every time you present one of these guys as representative of the Cult, all the other purported members will say, "Huh? This guy is a moron and doesn't represent anything I stand for."
It's just like when conservatives say that liberals are idiots because of something Al Sharpton said. All liberals don't parrot what Al Sharpton says. They might say they understand why he's angry, but that doesn't mean they agree with all of it.
For every kook on the right you zero in on the conservatives will find some kook on the left. And which kook is worse will be completely in the eyes of the beholder. Parading kooks in front of us doesn't really do anything except provide comedic value (which is a worthy cause in itself, but it doesn't prove anything).
Better to take something truly outrageous and terrifying that many prominent Republicans and conservatives and their supporters are saying and doing (for example McCain and Lieberman who have said, "We should have a law that takes away the citizenship of people we suspect of terrorism so we can try them in military tribunals") and explain why this is wrong. Nitpicking nitwits doesn't convince anyone of anything, and is just another case of political profiling.
Oh, and why is taking away someone's citizenship when they're suspected of terrorism terrifying? Well, it violates due process. More to the point, it could very quickly be turned on the right. We've had plenty of conservative American-born terrorists in the last twenty years (McVeigh, Nichols, Eric Rudolph, and recently the Hutaree militia). You want to amend your suggestion so that some kind of foreign entanglement is required to finagle that citizenship away from your favorite enemy? Well, look no further than the seditious and secessionist leanings of some on the right. Someone advocating leaving the Union hates America and wants to abandon his citizenship. Or they glorify the traitors who seceded from the Union and started the Civil War. One could convincingly argue that secessionists are far more dangerous to the well-being of this country than foreign terrorists could ever be, because we have ample precedent that secession will bring down a bloody, bloody war on our country that would dwarf anything Al Qaeda could possibly do.
As soon as you open the door to stripping citizens of their rights without a trial you have become Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Imposing punishment on someone before they're found guilty goes against everything this nation stands for. How can anyone possibly make such a suggestion?
Why is it that so many people who claim to value the Constitution want to shred it every time some bogey man rears its ugly head?
>(for example McCain and Lieberman who have said, "We should have a law that takes away the citizenship of people we suspect of terrorism so we can try them in military tribunals")
Blk, do you have a source for this? I'm no fan of either man, but I'd be (marginally, they are politicians after all) surprised to learn that either would say something that stupid.
"Huh? This guy is a moron and doesn't represent anything I stand for."
58 percent of Republicans in the Research 2000 poll taken in July of 2009 think that Barack Obama wasn't born here (20 percent) or they aren't sure (38 percent).
A Harris poll in March of this year showed that 24 percent of the GOP think that President Obama is the anti-Christ. The same poll showed that 48 percent thinks that he wasn't born here.
Then we have the CBS/NY Times poll in April that showed 30 percent of Tea Partiers and 20 percent of all respondents think that he was born in another country while 29 percent of Tea Partiers and 23 of all respondents don't know.
So, it is an error to say that people like Fitzpatrick and Huff are lone nuts who don't represent a good size portion of the Cult.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance
"Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."
Using your math, 61% (the sum of don't know + are sure, as if that makes any sense) of Democrats thought that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.
Now, child, you can continue to nutpick, to assign motivations and beliefs to those that disagree with you even though they have never stated such, or you can grow up and actually try to defend the assertions you make at TSM without running away with your tail between your legs. Which will you choose? (Rhetorical question, I know that you much prefer the running option.)
What's your point anonymous? How does one poll number excuse another poll number? At least people like Medved call the birthers for what they are-idiots.
There are more nutbags on the right than there are on the left. The ones on the right have the full force of the most popular news outlets in America.
What's your point anonymous? How does one poll number excuse another poll number? At least people like Medved call the birthers for what they are-idiots.
Precisely, Tee Bee. There are a whole lot of people on the right, not just Medved, who openly call the Birthers "nutjobs" in one form or another. Who on the left of Medved's stature calls the Truthers nutjobs, even though there is a higher proportion of them than there is of Birthers?
BTW, while I'm not the same Anonymous as the one above, I am one of those 38% who aren't sure where he was born. Why would I be? I haven't (nor am I likely to) done the research and the tracking to know for certain, and any politician ever has to be skilled enough at covering his tracks that the "official" history should be taken with a grain of salt by any sane person. That has nothing at all to do with his party, his politics, his skin color or anything else, it goes with the job.
However, while I won't claim I know... I'll give you pretty good odds that the Secret Service knows. So far, their answer seems to be good enough for them. It's just not on my priority list, one way or another.
There are more nutbags on the right than there are on the left. The ones on the right have the full force of the most popular news outlets in America.
According to Rasmussen, the country is 36.0% Democrat, 31.6% Republican, 32.5% independent:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends
So you're saying 58% of alleged Birthers in 31.6% of the voting public is more than 61% of alleged Truthers in 36.0% of the voting public? Or that 20% of 31.6 is more than 35% of 36.0%?
Or is it simpler than that? That I am a "nutjob" because I dare to not swallow the party line whole but haven't done my own research to find facts I'll stand by... yet someone who thinks 9/11 was a deliberate collaboration between Bush and Bin Laden is not?
In short, is it "a broad brush is accurate when I paint with it, but not when you do", or is it merely an inability to do arithmetic?
As for "the full force of the most popular news outlets in America", there's are reasons for that, ya know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx4HqkqNnJU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRmPTN07Iz4
Has it occurred to you that which news outlets are "most popular" might have more factors than just that one?
>What's your point anonymous? How does one poll number excuse another poll number?
The point is that quoting a poll isn't an argument. It's painting with a broad brush in order to avoid argument, and wow, I can do it too. Clearly, those of your political persuasion are unwilling to condemn the nutjob truthers in your midst; when oh when will Tee Bee and Mark admit that their side is worse, and it has a problem? (There, did I do that right? I think I included all the necessary shrill fake outrage.)
"Somebody tries to blow up times square and you talk about this moron?"
"Parading kooks in front of us doesn't really do anything except provide comedic value (which is a worthy cause in itself, but it doesn't prove anything)."
"It's just like when conservatives say that liberals are idiots because of something Al Sharpton said. All liberals don't parrot what Al Sharpton says."
"is it "a broad brush is accurate when I paint with it, but not when you do"
"The point is that quoting a poll isn't an argument. It's painting with a broad brush in order to avoid argument, and wow, I can do it too."
Bingo.
Darren Huff looks a lot like me...weird.
I'm still waiting for the GOP to admit that they have a lot of racists in their base. I understand why you didn't "go there" Mark but if you look at the reddest parts of the country, it's not surprising that you see this kind of stuff.
I'm still waiting for the Democrats to admit that Affirmative Action, in other words awarding or denying assistance, entitlement and privilege based on skin color, ethnicity and/or gender, is racism written into the very fabric of law.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-appalling-media-double-standard-on-reporting-political-violence/?singlepage=true
Post a Comment