Maxine Waters: Republicans are Demons

A google search, with the keywords, "Democrats are evil", will get you over 170,000 entries.

Ms. Waters stated that the two Republicans were "Demons". Perhaps you can be a bit more focused in your next google search.

Brett, I don't get your point...? So are you saying that Maxine Waters is justified in her statement?

Numerous non-Democrats have clearly made salacious remarks that are similar in content and meaning to "Demons", when referring to Democrats,

Perhaps you can be a bit more flexible in assessing a google search.

To Renee's 11:31 PM.


Anytime, ANYONE makes such comments, they're rediculous, unprofessional and they detract from the quality of discourse.

Both sides believe the other is salacious.

And you know it.

11:36 PM refers to 11:21 PM.

I do know it, I agree, I made that clear in my article, didn't I? I am calling for civility and an end of the name calling from both sides.

lol are you referring to No Child left behind??? lol

RENEE--

LET US SEE IF YOU DELETE THIS. THEN WE WILL KNOW HOW MUCH CIVIL DISCOURSE YOU ARE CAPABLE OF.

YOU ALLUDED TO ENDING THE BLASTS FROM BOTH SIDES.

BUT WHEN YOU PUT UP A POST WITH A LEAD THAT ONLY GOES AFTER ONE SIDE, YOUR REAL BIAS SHOWS.

ANY JOURNALIST OR ANY MEDIA SAVVY VIEWER, OR LISTENER, KNOWS, QUITE CLEARLY THAT THE L.....E......A.....D dictates, governs, influences, steers, navigates and otherwise directs the course of priority and thinking for the ENTIRE piece.

In this ever so hypersensitive format and venue--where everyone's emotions and thoughts are on edge, IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTIONS THEN INCLUDE AN EXAMPLE......FROM......THE.......OTHER......SIDE,WITH WATERS......AT....THE.....TOP, AS PART OF THE TITLE.

I hear what you are saying, Brett, however, the story started with Maxine Waters. "The name calling did not stop there, Eric Bolling from Fox News responded to Waters' rant by telling her that she should see what happened to Whitney Houston and to "step away from the crack pipe."

She was the instigator here and I stand by my title choice. I do not delete posts, I leave the anger out there for all to see.

A call for Civility is a Noble one.

However, in light of the fact that the Left controls the narrative, and that they believe that they determine how we may speak to one another, it is usually the Left that attacks, leaving the rest of us with two choices:

Roll over; or

Defend ourselves.

I, for one, am tired of fighting with both hands tied behind my proverbial back. We have been fighting that way in Afghanistan and Iraq.....for 10 years.

It doesn't work.

"Roll over or defend ourselves". So true. The name calling is just the lack of a substantive argument. I think the solution is to continue hammering away with the truth. I try not stoop to name calling, as tempting as it is ;-)

You missed the point because of your inflexible ego.

If you wanted to be TRULY `civil' you might have said to yourself,

"I will come up with another remark that attacks a well-known Democrat, include it in the title, and throughout the piece, alongside Waters; and then I will be able to demonstrate, more successfully, to everyone, that both sides are truly guilty.

"I will then DELETE this post and replace it with the one that is described above."

THAT is closer to true civility--NOT BRETT's civility.

Instead of saying, WELL SHE [Waters] STARTED IT!

Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah.......

Instead, you are basically preaching to your own choir and constituency.

I guess you are right, I do miss the point, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Brett, you're not the arbiter of Renee, her writing, or her Decisions.

She wrote a fair and decent article, and is one of the few who seeks decent and reasonable debate.

Be a Man, and extend her the courtesy.

12:36 PM refers to 12:08.

And Mark, at 12:24....

It is typical of the Right to ignore that AM Talk Radio--which is over 85% Right Wing, in this country--controls a large chunk of the NARRATIVE.

And the Right is VERY influential online--and, for example, right here on Gather.com.

To suggest that the Right doesn't have a strong influence is to be in complete denial.

Right Wing talk radio is often vicious, inaccurate, and propagandistic.

"I think the solution is to continue hammering away with the truth. I try not stoop to name calling, as tempting as it is ;-)" -- Renee

And that is precisely how you've handled yourself, here. You state your case, and make your points...with decency and Class. If I were to have the luxury of choosing even my adversaries, I would have no compunction to choose someone just like you.

You are fair, decent, and factual.

I like that.

I have a Right and WRITE to express constructive criticism.

And I so exercise that Right.

You're less of a Man for trying to deny me my Right.

Brett; nonsense and rubbish.

You really should increase your comprehension skills. I've stated many times in the past...The Left controls our Schools, our Grade Schools, our pre-Schools, our Universities, our Politics, our Families, our Local Television News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, ESPN...AND ON AND ON...

...and the Conservative? A large slice of Talk Radio, and Fox News.

Wake up.

Your claims are grossly exaggerated--and I mean grossly.

I will, however, agree that MSNBC and academia are influenced most by liberal thinking.

You underestimate the malignant din of Talk Radio that blares out, maliciously, to millions of households and cars, every moment.

I wish I had 50 academic institutions for every listener's mind that is polluted by a local radio talk show or syndicated radio talk show.

The propaganda power of radio far exceeds anything--BUT ANYTHING--else.

And your claim of the Left controlling families is simply bizarre.

"I wish I had 50 academic institutions for every listener's mind that is polluted by a local radio talk show or syndicated radio talk show."-- confused

You do.

It is your claims that are beyond bizarre...

I suspect that the media helps us to turn against each-other if we are of different political mindsets. We are suspicious before we even have a discussion (generally speaking). It is sad, and it has not always been this way, I don't remember this extreme polarization growing up, but then maybe I was too young to realize it.

Brett, do you listen to talk radio, you are clearly very much against it, I am wondering if you believe that any of the conservative hosts are fair in their dialogue? Or are they all spouting "propaganda"? For example, I think Michael Medved is fair. Just trying to find some common ground.

The media is controlled by the left. Talk radio is an exception. The local Las Vegas NBC station is a fine example of left wing progressive garbage broadcast, without trying to even be subtle about it.

The media is hardly controlled by the left, the media is controlled by the mushy middle, there is no real left in the United States. We do not have a socialist party, we have a media party broken up like a group of children tossing a hot potato around to make it look like there is something going on here, but in all of the most important events of the last 10 years for sure, the whole media has been united in pushing the country in a desired direction.

There is change in the US government. Used to be that when the government did pushing it was in service of some noble goal, such as WWII, or the war on poverty, or civil rights, public schools. Now the government is just another branch - the rubber stamp branch - of a corporate agenda driven by those with the most money.

"We do not have a socialist party" - we actually do, don't we? It is just not very popular as we are not a socialist country.

The government has been hijacked by establishment politicians. Some are sincere, I am sure. However, the elitism and the career politicians on both sides crush those little guys who want to make change.

Actually, we have become a country that just screams yes or no in sympathy to what our avowed group says, or in antipathy to what the opposition group says - without thinking - in fact our media works to make discussion of most issues in the public space impossible, as you can see on almost any internet message board.

So no, we do not have the socialist point of view explained, accepted or broadcast in the American marketplace of ideas. For example how President Obama before he was elected acknowleged that the ultimate solution to health care was a single payer system, but did not even mention it once after he was elected despite the majority of doctors and nurses and a large segment of the population that supports that.

If issues were explained by facts and analysis without all the disinformation and propaganda we would have more appropriate and better solutions to our dilemmas, that is market solutions where market solutions work, public solutions where public solutions work, and socialist solutions where socialist solutions work. If you read any obective economics book they will touch on places where market solutions do not work or create the wrong incentives, but we do not hear that. Likewise when asked in non-biased ways Americans support quite a few things that some could whine socialism about.

The reason the US used to work so well is that even if there were small pockets of corruption geographically or within a given industry the land and markets were large enough that many could prosper or get away from whatever they do not like.

Now, the country and the world is smaller, there is less room and the big powers are fighting for domination at all levels. Notice how over time every industry is taken over by corporations. There used to be plenty of Mom & Pop grocery stores, drug stores, barber shops, video shops, restaurants, now everything is hierarchicalized under some corporation, the money and profits are funneled away and used to control other countries in the same way, there is no room for a free human being to engage in business, or hardly even get a job unless you kow-tow to the corporate mentality … and Republicans call that Liberty.

Ha. The reason I agree with Waters is that there is no other word for people who would take the US system, look at what the Constitution and our moral guidelines says about how people shoud live, and then come up with our current system as some kind of God-blessed concoction. People who unashamedly lie for money are not people that should be in places of responsiblity or power, and if they are, whatever country or organization is going to be doomed to failure.

Bruce you said: So no, we do not have the socialist point of view explained, accepted or broadcast in the American marketplace of ideas.

We may not have a Socialist party such as Bruce describes (they are not ready yet to be that in the U.S.), however as Renee points out, we do have a Socialist party working hard to get it's day in the sun in the U.S. And we have Progressive Liberal Democrats working hand in hand with them.

For example, in case some have not yet seen it ... here are two Progressive Liberals that have those leanings for certain.

I am left to wonder how many others are in that close association with Socialists but that never get caught on tape or video. +sigh+ Perhaps some or all of that whole list of Congressional DSA members which went missing from the Socialist web site almost as soon as it went public?

Watch out for the socialist boogeyman Lee. The fact is that no matter how much seek to take advantage of the predisposition of Americans to jump when they hear the word socialism, Democrats are not socialists.

When someone speaks to a given audience it does not make them members or supporters of that audience either.

John Conyers supports a Single Payer health care system so that makes him a socialist? I just think that if the United States does not operate in the interests of all its people we have a broken system. If we have a democracy, representative or otherwise, that is not doing the job then we need to government to step in and kick-start things.

Well let me start out with saying here, and/ or here is a lady who does not seem, nor does she act like she is psycho, nuts, crazy, or drug addled ... in antithesis to Maxine.

Interesting video … lots of reasons not to like Afghanistan's governent, but we know that already. But none of that is the real issue, the issue … the BATTLEFIELD in this particular battle is public relations, and in terms of burning the Koran there is nothing good that can come of that, or from refusing to acknowledge it was not a good idea. Already Al-Qaeda says they murdered two Americans over this. Now, Al-Qaeda is going to try to murder Americans whatever happens, but all burning Korans does is inflame them and make it more likely. So, if an apology … a sincere apology for something that should not have been done is expedient, I see no problem for it.

The whole war over these issues really is a cultural clash, and I am rather solidly against radical Islam, and I am also against Maxine Waters is some of her opposition to the war, but I think radical Islam in the world needs to be pushed back and destroyed, but we need to do it efficiently and without destroying our economy in the process, so some of Waters' criticisms have grounds.

Not everyone in our government will agree or will be right, but if we have more people who would tell us where they stand as forthrightly as Maxine Waters, there is no doubt we would be able to make better decisions political and we would have a better country.

The problem is that we coddle those who hate us anyway. The apologies have not helped, sadly, they only make us look weak, from the perspective of the radicals.

Amen, Bruce, about forthrightness, but when the word "demon" comes up, I think that halts the conversation. How can we come to common ground while name-calling?

Bruce you said: the BATTLEFIELD in this particular battle is public relations, and in terms of burning the Koran there is nothing good that can come of that,

Nothing good whatever ... there is no need to bow and scrape or even pray over those Qura'ans. And for sure one can't call the Imam from the local Mosque to come in and help with the disposal since they have possibly harmful messages in them that may be considered sensitive or classified or something.

But one might think that by now our people would know what would inflame the sensibilities of the "deeply religious' among them, and then not do it.

At the very least they could have separated the Qura'ans from the trash if not because of respect for the book or the religion, then in respect for the people who do respect the book as well as for their own self preservation. +shrug+ When in Rome and all that at the very very very very least.

However IF more than a cursory apology was necessary for what was a mistaken action (though ignorantly mistaken); then it should not have been the POTUS who offered it. And it should have been offered once in private and then once in public. Then done with it.

Renee you said Amen, Bruce, about forthrightness, but when the word "demon" comes up, I think that halts the conversation. How can we come to common ground while name-calling?

I agree about the forthrightness to a point. What I mean is politics and life are what they are, and my opinion is that not everyone needs to know everything all the time about everybody (contrary to what computer/telephone/ interconnectivity merchants and the younger generation think). Not even politicians.

True, Lee ;-) When I said that, I was envisioning standing up for one's beliefs, but in a civil way, of course.

True, Lee ;-) When I said that, I was envisioning standing up for one's beliefs, but in a civil way, of course.

Ahhh ... I get it, Renee. Standing up for one's true beliefs. Well, Maxine certainly does do that, doesn't she?

my opinion is that not everyone needs to know everything all the time about everybody (contrary to what computer/telephone/ interconnectivity merchants and the younger generation think). Not even politicians. Amen Lee! The media has caused us headaches and wars from too much information being given to the wrong people!

> The media has caused us headaches and wars from
> too much information being given to the wrong people!

Well, now that we've got that sorted out, on to Cold Fusion ! ;-)

I would not use that term, but I agree with her. Not all Republicans, just the marginal militant groups that has Un-democratically co-opted the Republican party, when they are not really even Democrats, and forced this extremist political system on all the country by economic, media, and financial means. It is a brand of pure totalitarianism in my opinion - and not all Republicans are comfortable with it, as I was not starting 20 or so years ago.

Thanks, Bruce. I think that we need more, though. Your comment, "marginal militant groups that has Un-democratically co-opted the Republican party" is quite a charge. That is one of those statements that needs to be backed up with facts to have any credibility, in my opinion. If you are referring to the Tea Party here as "militant", you must mean that you think their beliefs (ie, smaller government, less taxes, entitlements) are militant in a belief capacity. Can you elaborate?

I am not referring to the TEA party movement. I am sort of neutral on them. I am referring to the insider corporate monied people in the Republican party … and the Democratic party, although I think the Republicans are more aligned with an sympathetic to the corporate agenda than the Democrats, but the Democrats need that money so they try to make common cause with it as well.

By militant I would use as the example the way George Bush stacked his administration with people who shared his poltical point of view ahead of competence, such as "Brownie" as FEMA's head. The people who were more non-partisan or willing to compromise were mostly jettisoned, such as the Attorney General, and other advisors who ended up writing books about what was really going on.

Every President has the right to put in people he wants to work with, but Obama cannot get anything done. In order to get the Consumer Advocate czar installed he finally resorted to a recess appointment, but he has not overdone that as the previous administration.

Ah yes, " insider corporate monied people in the Republican party … and the Democratic party". I think they are equally as bad, but that is just me ;-)

"George Bush stacked his administration with people who shared his poltical point of view ahead of competence", I submit that Obama has done the same, people have had to leave his administration, as well, with all of his "czars", no? (aka Van Jones). Andrew Jackson got this ball rolling back in the day, interesting, see the "spoils system".

So, I think that "militant" is an unusual word, as it brings to mind fierceness and even violence, but now I get what you meant.

As far as your last bit about the recess appointment, I actually wrote about that and have a feeling that we differ in opinion, but I would love to hear your thoughts.

Recess appointments, as I understand them, is the right of the President, and I have no problem with them per se.

What I have a problem with is their abuse. I'll not go into specifics other than to say Obama's appointment described from Wikipedia here:

> On January 4, 2012, Barack Obama made four recess appointments: Richard Cordray to serve as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and appointed three new members to the National Labor Relations Board.

In my opinion there appointments are justified because the country needs a consumer watchdog bureau, and even representation of labor and the Republicans refuse to allow that to happen, Obama had no other choice when you look at what the Republicans wanted to do with that position to neuter it.

Our system of government thrives on balance and tension. Because it is clear that money and corporations have usurped the power of the people in an unbalanced way I tend to support Democrats or the Liberal agenda in the majority of areas, but not all.

Maxine Waters has also been attributed with saying "as far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell." A famous quote was, "Guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be about socializing ... uh, umm. ... Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies." She has called the flag waving at a Tea Party rally "outrageous" and has a history of incendiary remarks."

I always almost go into giggles every time I think of the video with her saying those things to the oil execs ... the guy in the chair behind her cracks me up as he watches Ms Waters struggle and fail to find the appropriate back track. And so she pushes on and says what she really meant to say, exactly from her heart.


"... calling everyone and their mother "racist," it is actually a ploy, a way to divert attention and promote an emotional response, so that intelligent debate does not have to be engaged in.

Tee hee ... yeah. And yer dog too... nanny boo boo and on it goes. Sometimes listening to the littany about racism I hear a song in my head .. You scream I scream we all scream for icecream. Silly you say? Um ... yeah; point made. lol

The name calling did not stop there, Eric Bolling from Fox News responded to Waters' rant by telling her that she should see what happened to Whitney Houston and to "step away from the crack pipe." Of course, this statement has "infuriated" some, who condemn Eric Bolling's comment as "racist." According to the LA Times, "Eric C. Bauman, chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party, called for the network to remove Bolling." Alternet.org concurs and criticized that the way some have characterized Whitney Houston's death "has exposed the extent to which racial stereotypes still color national discourse."

Ah yes, Maxine can call anyone names and say any incendiary thing she likes. But if anyone says anything in opposition to it, it's racist. Just like with Obama. And now it also seems no one can condemn or make sport of drug addicts or we are racist ... because ... why? Don't know. But in any case ...

I addressed racist accusations like that recently ... my coments went something like this:

Waters makes herself look ugly by the things that she says. Not because she's black.

There are many many people of various colors including black brown tan and every similar hue who can express themselves in much better ways than she can and who never lower themselves the way she does on such a somewhat regular basis. So 'black' can't be the reason for the behavior.

No, sorry; you can't use that bit of biological happenstance to make Maxine's comments and behavior seem better or of higher purpose than they were ...

In other words, however hard you try you simply cannot make 'black' the excuse for Water's behavior.

Her behavior comes from much deeper than that. Out of the heart the mouth speaks. And that's something that is much harder to overcome even in our society than skin color.

"There are many many people of various colors including black brown tan and every similar hue who can express themselves in much better ways than she can and who never lower themselves the way she does on such a somewhat regular basis. So 'black' can't be the reason for the behavior." Well said!

I was at a party with some of my best friends last night, they were all various "hues", a couple from India with their baby, a couple from Iran, a man from Singapore and a man from the UAE. I love them like family and they certainly do not speak like that.

I would recommend this article, that I referenced above.

In part, it says, "Regarding the Republican "demons" House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, we all know if they were to call Maxine Waters a demon or a she-devil, they would be called racist. Yet, by not addressing the matter of name calling at all makes them look like punks and they got a "bully beat down."

Good article Fren ... and I agree they better start addressing this issue but carefully. So as not to fall into the same trap and category as Waters has put herself.

In fact, while it can't be done online, I've found that sometimes words are not even needed... come a day when Maxine needs something or one of her supporters needs something; a vote or whathaveyou... an arched eyebrow and a look that says "Really?" followed by the view of the Conservative or Republican or Democrat walking away would do as well if it happened often enough.

Okay, let me try that again .... Good article RENEE. I must have read something from Fren just before I posted to you

And in regard to that linked article . . .

When the author says "her connection with black churches" I think it's important to say (not that the author was remiss in not saying it; ya can't cover all angles all the time), but I think it is important to at least note that NOI has not infected all black churches. Though it seems it has infected Maxine (and possibly her personal church wherever that is but I know nothing of that church). That said, let me move on.

I should have known or realized this before, but now I've seen the article it's so obvious I'm almost embarrassed to have not perceived it previous.

The particular derogatory word "demon" Maxine used to describe some of her Republican collegues was not done at random ... it actually has a basis in Maxine's foundational worldview as quoted from the article you linked:

Maxine Waters is careful where and when she choses to use words to offend Republicans, especially while using words that support her connection with black churches and that will ignite the urban people.

The "white man" has always been looked at as a devil to the black community, so calling John Boehner and Eric Cantor "demons" is not shocking to those who know this frame of reference.

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that, "whites are blue-eyed devils." Why? Minister Louis Farrakhan told Tim Russert the answer back in April 13, 1997 on NBC television's "Meet the Press:"

"... It says Babylon is fallen because she has become the habitation of devils. We believe that ancient Babylon is a symbol of a modern Babylon which is America. America has become a land of people who want to do their own thing, and their own thing is in direct contravention and rebellion against the will of God, which makes any rebel against God an agent of Satan".

And that is a mild quote from him. So, Renee, I know you are familiar with this guy but there may be some who read this who are not.

Here's a video that shows Maxine and Farakhan together, and then goes on to show just who Farakhan is.

And trust me, he is worse than liberals thought McCain's Parsley or Hagee were, even if they were put together. Remember the Reverend Wright? He's suckling at mother's milk compared to Farakhan (as far as what I've heard about him though he may be worse than I know).

And Republicans tolerate this woman's accusations and invectives because theyare afraid of being labeled racist? We know there is some validity to that 'fear', but in just the same way one can validly fear a schoolyard bully, if you don't stand up to that bully you will spend quite a lot of time shoved unwillingly in your locker.

You either have to ignore a bully in a certain way (in Maxine's case that would be to isolate her in Congress and never never never do her any favors ... political or otherwise), or fight back (but not on the same level or with the same weapons but definitely so that the bully knows she's been challenged and bested - what? no one in Congress is smart enough to figure out a way to do that? Then they need to consider a new career).

That video link with Waters is really out of context and just an attack on her. If you are going to attack her at least do it fairly. Someone who is so open and clear about where she stands and what she says it should be easy. She is a government representative, and as such whatever she thinks of Farrakhan she is obligated to hear what this group says. It does not mean she is conspiring with Black Muslims.

Ever since I heard of Black Muslims and Farrakhan they scare me, and I don't like them. But they are Americans and they have rights and a point of view.

>> And trust me, he is worse than liberals thought McCain's
>> Parsley or Hagee were, even if they were put together.

Really, trust you? ;-)

I don't think some of you realize the anger that many black people have towards the US government, mostly the Republican party - i.e. Lincoln's party, the party that ended slavery. Today we have more black people in prison in America than we had total slaves during the era of slavery - over 150 after the end of slavery. To communicate with people who have that background, that cultural experience, I have no problem with Maxine Waters using a word that must seem very powerful and appropriate to a certain audience. I don't think it is a big thing.

The idea that we get some kind of political information or balanced view on politics by getting these very few and selected sound bites and that it is meaningful or a good way to focus on the problem with our system seems invalid to me, but it is good to know where people really stand so one can vote their preference.

"I don't think some of you realize the anger that many black people have towards the US government, mostly the Republican party - i.e. Lincoln's party, the party that ended slavery."I don't think it is helpful to name call, Maxine and Farrakhan whip people up into an angry frenzy.

Come on Bruce, you are actually defending her right to use the word demon describing republicans? "To communicate with people who have that background, that cultural experience, I have no problem with Maxine Waters using a word that must seem very powerful and appropriate to a certain audience. " First of all, I don't think you are giving the audience much credit. This is why civil discourse is going down the tubes. I guess you defend the crack pipe comment, too? Maxine Waters has said plenty that we don't have to be creative with her quotes, she "digs her own grave".

> Come on Bruce, you are actually defending her right to use the word demon describing republicans?

Yes, absolutely, of course, doesn't she have freedom of speech just like you are I do?

Yes, civil discourse is going down the tubes, has been, and maybe all the way down by now, and this shows that Maxine Waters is angry and frustrated about it, and blames the Republicans. I share that aspect of her opinion.

For example, have you ever noticed the difference between right wing and left wing news and editorial shows. The right wing, O'Reilly is almost always ready to jump out of his chair and take a swing at any Democrat who he thinks is saying something offensive to him, and every day, every show, at least where there is a Democrat in sight, he must think that.

The right wing shows cut people off, they hang up on them, they insult them. Listen to the difference between Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, or Rush Limbaugh and Thom Hartman … it's right there in front of our noses.

I think the crack pipe was mean and hurtful and kind of a racial comment, but that guy is going to have to suffer the consequences of it just like Maxine. The thing is Maxine Waters is at least consistent, she does not march in lock-step with the Democrats, and she speaks her mind. She may use street language to talk to some constituents, but she is not stupid.

And I am not even going to mention Mark Levin … you can hear the spittle from his foaming at the mouth hitting the microphone for goodness sake.

There are more sedate right wing commentators, like David Brooks or John McLaughin, but they are just more intellectual in their jousting, they still are always working to put one over on people for the most part. Not always, I kind of like the last two I mentioned because can be articulate and honest.

I'm not sure I can even think of a Liberal commentator that is rude or obnoxious … can you jog my memory, maybe I'm just drawing a blank

This is another case of what my mom used to say, "two wrongs don't make a right". It is ridiculous for an elected representative, whose area of service includes black, white, dems and reps, should go around calling people "demons". It is incendiary and low-class and ludicrous. It is reminiscent of the climate after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, when the left was blaming talk radio for actions of the lunatic who shot her and killed others.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one, because I think she is horrible for her demon (and other) comment and I think the crack pipe comment is horrible, too.

The article that I mentioned above, written by an African American implores those who were called demons to engage, ""Regarding the Republican "demons" House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, we all know if they were to call Maxine Waters a demon or a she-devil, they would be called racist. Yet, by not addressing the matter of name calling at all makes them look like punks and they got a "bully beat down."

I can appreciate her point but no way do I agree. "Right is might", the truth is all you need. Going down to the level of name calling is only making our values go down and our polarization and mistrust of one another go up!

Yelling out "you lie" when it is the President's turn to speak to the American people is not respectful either. There is no control or demand that these people back off this kind of behavior, so when one person does it and gets away with it, others are more or less forced to follow along or they become marginalized. For me I usually just ignore these gotcha politics moments unless I think they are extremely obvious and very significant.

Gifford's shooting was "linked" by some people to the attitude of right wing groups, not talk radio. There was the website that said she was targeted with a gunsight with what is violent rhetoric. Again, you do not find that in Liberal websites for the most part. There is a different in rhetoric between the different levels of the different sides. It's mostly not useful to talk about because Conservatives always want to use the framing of both sides are equal because over time they get more and more radical which forces the Democrats to the right. The Democrats might believe they are above these tactics, but they are losing, so now they try to engage in them too.

But, first I want to ask what difference it makes what the race was of the person who wrote the article mentioned above? It's sort of false advertising to associate a black point of view with a specific black person in the media. There are lots of black Republicans.

I'll bet that if you search the Internet you can find Maxine Waters called a lot worse than demon as well, and in fact it is nothing notable to point this out in right wing groups because it is so common. During Iraq and the run up to the war Waters was one of the only ones to call for more deliberation.

The thing is that Maxine Waters is out there and no one takes what she says too seriously, at least I don't. She is not as sophisticated mealy mouthed
politician like most of what we see so she says things and the media takes advantage of it, kind of like Joe Biden. I don't mind plain speaking, and I don't particularly think calling the Republican party demons is that offensive, especially coming from Waters.

Conservatives like to throw Sal Alinsky's name at Obama, who was basically a organizer of grassroots democracy, but the whole Conservative movement was built around Trotskyism which frames it basically as a long-term propaganda and disinformation war on the American government by the rich - and what is what we have been getting from the Republicans since Reagan. There is a difference in kind between the two parties that is basically the Democrats playing conventional politics while the Republicans use sophisticated analytical intelligence strategies to take over the government. I loved what this country used to be and is capable of and I think taking over the country just for financial gain is about as demonish as politics can get.

Until we figure out a way to arbitrate name calling and offensive rhetoric in politics I think we are going to have to live with it, after all, I would bet that almost 100% of all these peolpe say some pretty amazing things when they are out of range of the microphones and with their friends … so are we just going to elect the peolpe that happen to be smoother liars or who just have not been caught saying controversial things?

Yelling out "you lie" when it is the President's turn to speak to the American people is not respectful either. There is no control or demand that these people back off this kind of behavior, so when one person does it and gets away with it, others are more or less forced to follow along or they become marginalized.

Joe Wilson apologized: "This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."

Obama accepted the apology: "I'm a big believer that we all make mistakes...He apologized quickly and without equivocation and I'm appreciative of that."

Gifford's shooting was "linked" by some people to the attitude of right wing groups, not talk radio. There was the website that said she was targeted with a gunsight with what is violent rhetoric. Again, you do not find that in Liberal websites for the most part.


Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee maps

> Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee maps





Not the same now is it when you show the full image.

Yes, I think it's the same and you ignored the other map on the link.

Do you recall this one:

> Yes, I think it's the same and you ignored the other map on the link.

No, I did not ignore it, here it is:



I see a difference here in that there is no violent rhetoric, and the man's face is shown and a bit about him which humanizes him as a person, just a political opponent, not a target. I don't expect you to agree, that is part of how Republicans have gotten to this point … like the boiling frog" metaphor, Republians have slowly moved the country's political rhetoric into war.

Grover Norquist talks about drowning government in the bathtub. Republicans are so submerged in this attitude like a fish in water you do not see it.

There was a interview on last night on the PBS City Arts and Lecture series with David Shields, an old-timer political talking head. He talked about how until the "Gingrich revolution" Democrat & Republican politicians used to carpool home with each other during recess, or go out for drinks after the close of business. They could communicate and compromise until Gingrich shut that down - personally as speaker of the house demanding that Republicans not even socialize with Democrats.

He also talked about how Gingrich, thought he now claims to be a Reagan Republican called Reagan a virtual traitor for holding his meeting with Gorbachev on Berlin. History and how this country worked are deliberately ignored and held back so we think this state of fear in our society is normal, but it was not until Republicans ramped up this kind of rhetoric - first.

Republican Zombie Defense

Liked by the White House

I see a difference here in that there is no violent rhetoric, and the man's face is shown and a bit about him which humanizes him as a person, just a political opponent, not a target. I don't expect you to agree

To put the target on the state is ok because it's not attached to a person.
To target the individual is ok if you add a picture.
But to put the target on the district without a picture is to promote violence?

No, I don't agree. I don't have a problem with any of them. I think the real problem was the media using the horrific act of a deranged individual
as a political attack on those they disagree with.

Talk radio was certainly blamed by the left for inciting violence, as was Sarah Palin's map. I wrote about this and my ongoing calls for civility. I also remember the fear and anger Nancy Pelosi and the left expressed over the potential danger of the Tea Party.

Remember that?

From my article,

"Mr. Loughner was found to have a letter from 2007 (before the Tea Party or Sarah Palin's map) from Gabrielle Giffords in a safe with the words, "die, bitch" and "die, cops" scrawled on it. Once it became clear that Loughner had no affiliation with the Tea Party or Sarah Palin, but in fact, was a "left-wing pothead" according to a classmate, the anger was replaced with calls for toning down violent rhetoric, particularly in talk radio."

Bruce, how do you feel about the Occupy movement? If you want to see violence - overt violence - you can look to that movement. To argue over which target map could incite violence in a man who hated the tea party and was described by his friend as "left Wing Pothead" and was (is) mentally deranged is just silly.

The idea that Sarah Palin's map incited anyone to violence is, in my opinion, completely off base. How about this FB site?

Both sides have their nuts.

> No, I don't agree.

The fact is that Republicans DID tone down their rhetoric in the aftermath of that whether they accepted some kind of connection to it or not, or whatever you say or don't say you agree with. You seem to be saying Republicans should never accept any social sanctions or reflect on their actions at all - which is the mentality of war actually.

The point of your not agreeing is a way of saying you do not care what other people think, which is a kind of Republican habit of behavior whatever the case at hand - which is I assume part of Waters' point. You Republicans are always casting hostility around like you have a permanent chip on your shoulders from all the abuse you pretend have to take from an overly Liberal media, but you don't get that it the higher ups in our own mentality that are doing it!

I mean face it, somewhere around 99% of Republicans are not in the 1% - sp what on Earth do they think they are doing except blowing off steam in random directions, sort of like Loughner. Why does the rest of the country have to wait for the slow learners to wake up and catch up? ;-)

Renee, I feel about the same about both movements, there is a little bit of rationale behind them both and mostly just a lever for more media manipulation. both groups certainly have their Constitutional rights, but to me that is not the issue, there are really not many specific cases of anyone's Constitutional rights being jeopardized.

The issue I have with almost all "movements" or demonstrations is that they do not really represent their constiuents any more than our government. Our government seems to see the American homeland as its possession, not something that belongs to the people. The proof that our government is owned by money is that the government, those most active in government want to privatize everything, that is, they want to push government to first appropriate everyone's commpn interest in our country, and then sell it off to those very people with money … then government by the people is just in the way.

"most" of the planks in this project are Repblican in my oinion and experience, but only because Republicans used to be in most recent history, vestigially, the party of the elite special interests who occasionally became too "militant" in their plans, the Democrats were their balance. Now both parties are really the same with their meaningless differences being used to get all the rest of us to bicker and fight instead of realize even if or when we did possibly agree there is nothing they are going to let us do about it anyway.

That's how I feel! ;-)

I am not sure what you don't agree with? That both sides have their nuts, that Jared was not influenced by a map, or that Jared was a "left wing pothead"?

You said that I think that "Republicans should never accept any social sanctions or reflect on their actions at all - which is the mentality of war actually." Where do you get that I say that?

I think it is a bit ironic, though, that you want Republicans to "reflect on their actions" while it is ok for Maxine to use the word "Demons" in describing Republicans.

Hateful Rhetoric is on both sides. To blindly follow a party is kind of why we are on this path.

"Our government seems to see the American homeland as its possession, not something that belongs to the people." On that we can agree ;-)

> I am not sure what you don't agree with?
You asked me how I felt.

> Where do you get that I say that?
You are correct, you did not say that, I said that.

> I think it is a bit ironic
I'm missing that, I don't see the irony. Do you think "demon" is a terrible insult or that Maxine Waters is a habitual offender? I do not.

> Hateful Rhetoric is on both sides.
I cannot agree with that, but I'd have to spend far too much time and energy trying to parse the work "hateful" that again is used by the Republicans to say they are just doing what the Democrats are doing. It ain't so. The scale and the magnitude of Conservative Republican hate for Liberals is nowhere near equivalent in magnitude or kind than Liberal Democrats - mostly, I think because it has based for quite a while based on disinformation to protect the self-interest of those who used to have only the Republicans to go to for support, but now that everything is based on money can go to some Democats as well - including the Democratic President Bill Clinton who signed away Glass-Steagel.

So, roundabout, I agree "blindly" following any party is indefensible. However, from the main problems I see we face I hear some Democratic voices - even socialist voices saying things that I agree NEED to happen for us to begin to change course, and all I hear from Republicans are keep it the same or return to the recent past.

The problem is that even though the people voted for change with Obama, Obama was unable to deliver anything that I would consider substantial that did not have to filter through the gating of the corporate and financial interests.

> > "Our government seems to see the American homeland
> > as its possession, not something that belongs to the people.

> " On that we can agree ;-)

But I'm almost positive you would not consider yourself a socialist … which I do find ironic, and curious.

I'm not sure I can even think of a Liberal commentator that is rude or obnoxious … can you jog my memory, maybe I'm just drawing a blank

Keith Olbermann

I don't really listen to him though I see video clips being posted. Olberman is loud and pushy with facts, but I would not say rude and obnoxious. Can you find a clip where you think he was? Obnoxius is not just have a style or standing for something you personally do not like Mike.

Is this Olberman commentary obnoxious to you Mike?

Can you find a clip where you think he was?

Did you not watch the video link I already provided?

Is this Olberman commentary obnoxious to you Mike?

Absurdly biased but not obnoxious. This video is evidence of what, exactly?

> Did you not watch the video link I already provided?

Hey Mike, I will not be answering any more of your posts. Seek help before you hurt someone else or yourself. I'm serious about that.

I know watching Olbermann can seem like torture, but I think you'll recover.