Tom Coburn And Dick Armey Are Big Fat Throbbing Cocks

Gosling

So if you happened to be up yesterday morning, and if you're the kind of person that watches Meet the Press, you will have seen Tom Coburn (R-OK) unleash this charming little bit of cockbaggery:

MR. GREGORY: All right. But let’s talk about the tone of the debate. There have been death threats against members of Congress, there are Nazi references to members of Congress and to the president. Here are some of the images. The president being called a Nazi, his reform effort being called Nazi-like, referring to Nazi Germany, members of Congress being called the same. And then there was this image this week outside of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a town hall event that the president had, this man with a gun strapped to his leg held that sign, “It is time to water the tree of liberty.” It was a reference to that famous Thomas Jefferson quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” That has become a motto for violence against the government. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, had that very quote on his shirt the day of the bombing of the Murrah building when 168 people were killed.
Senator Coburn, you are from Oklahoma. When this element comes out in larger numbers because of this debate, what, what troubles you about that?
SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): Well, I’m, I’m troubled anytime when we, we stop having confidence in, in our government. But we’ve earned it. You know, this debate isn’t about health care. Health care’s the symptom. The debate is an uncontrolled federal government that’s going to run--50 percent of everything we’re spending this year we’re borrowing from the next generation. You...

At which point he was immediately set upon by David Gregory-- and Rachel Maddow, who just happened to be present as well:

MR. GREGORY: That’s—but wait, hold on, I want to stop you there. I’m talking about the tone. I am talking about violence against the government. That’s what this is synonymous with.
SEN. COBURN: The, the—but the tone is based on fear of loss of control of their own government. What, what is the genesis behind people going to such extreme statements? What is it? We, we have lost the confidence, to a certain degree, and it’s much worse than when Tom was the, the, the leader of the Senate. We have, we have raised the question of whether or not we’re legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests. And that’s the question. The, the mail volume of all the senators didn’t go up based on the healthcare debate, the mail volume went up when we started spending away our future indiscriminately. And that’s not Republican or Democrat, that has been a problem for years. But it’s exacerbated now that we’re in the kind of financial situation and economic situation.
MR. GREGORY: Congressman Armey, FreedomWorks, your organization, advocacy organization getting together a lot of folks, coordinating a lot of the efforts to get people out for the protests. Do you bear some responsibility for the tone of the debate?
FMR. REP. DICK ARMEY (R-TX): Not, not whatsoever. Not when you see the kind of extreme thing you just saw, the—you know, I had my differences with President Bush, George W. Bush, there’s no doubt about it. They were well aware of that. But when moveon.org ran those ads that compared President Bush with, with Adolf Hitler, I thought it was despicable.
MS. RACHEL MADDOW: They never did that.
REP. ARMEY: They did do it. I’ll show you the ad.
MS. MADDOW: They didn’t do that. They never ran an ad that compared...
REP. ARMEY: All right. Anyway. All right.
MS. MADDOW: MoveOn never ran an ad that compared Bush to Hitler.
REP. ARMEY: All right.
MR. GREGORY: Well, hold on, hold on. Finish your thought and then...
REP. ARMEY: What, what, what, you’re going to get your chance to talk. Well, I, I, I just looked at the moveon.org ad again this morning, and it, it was a horrible thing. You know, it’s horrible to see this. But I have had town hall meetings since 1984. There are always a lot of colorful people that show up with town hall meetings, a lot of people with a lot of colorful statements. When FreedomWorks encourages people to go to town hall meetings, we encourage them to go and make their points clearly, assertively and with good manners. So I’m not—I don’t know who these folks are. We certainly bear no responsibility for...
MR. GREGORY: But you say good manners; the, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, wrote an op-ed this week during which she said, “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts”...
REP. ARMEY: Well...
MR. GREGORY: ...”drowning out the facts is how we failed at this effort for many decades.” Un-American, Rachel?
REP. ARMEY: Well...
MS. MADDOW: I—well, I, I think that anytime you’re trying to stop discussion, I think that’s un-American. But I, I mean, I take issue with the idea that the government has done anything to earn the kind of threats of violence that we have seen.
SEN. COBURN: I didn’t say that.
MS. MADDOW: Well, you—well, David, I...
SEN. COBURN: What I, what I said is what—it is indicative of the loss of confidence. And when people are afraid, they do all sorts of things that they normally wouldn’t do.
MR. GREGORY: All right.
MS. MADDOW: I don’t think...
SEN. COBURN: And we have undermined, by our actions—whether it be earmarking and corruption and, and disconnection between integrity and character in what we do and what the people expect, and this—these are just symptoms...
MS. MADDOW: But whether...
SEN. COBURN: ...of a lack of confidence in what we’re doing.
MR. GREGORY: Go ahead, Rachel.
MS. MADDOW: Whether or not, whether or not the government has acted in a way that you feel is defensible, I don’t think the government has done anything to earn, in your words, the, the, the threat of—that the blood of tyrants must run in the streets, which is what the literal threat was from that man with the gun strapped to, strapped to his leg in New Hampshire. I also don’t think that, that there is an equivalence between what moveon.org has done and with the comparisons of the president to Hitler that we’ve seen so often in this debate. I mean, some of the major organizations who are organizing these events, like Americans for Prosperity, a group that has some similarities to FreedomWorks but definitely a different group, they’ve had speakers going around the country not only comparing healthcare reform to Hitler, but comparing them to Pol Pot and Stalin, saying “Put the fear of God into your members of Congress.” I don’t think the government has done anything to earn that.

I don't really think the discussion is whether what Coburn said was right. That's really not even a debate. I think the discussion, rather, is what it means when a member of Congress is saying that his colleagues have 'earned' threats of violence, what should be done as a result, and what will actually be done as a result.

WHAT I THINK IT MEANS: He'll be lucky if some of his colleagues even speak to him again. Mostly Democrats, but... really. "Hey, Bob." "Fall in a well and die, Tom."
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE: Censure at the very least. What would happen at your own workplace if a coworker gets a death threat and you say he's earned it? (Don't mock censure. It's a pretty powerful shaming device; it has driven a number of its victims to resign.)
WHAT WILL ACTUALLY BE DONE: Regrettably, probably nothing much. Fuss, feathers, but unless it gets real legs to it, nothing will come of it, and even if it does, Coburn likely has the clout necessary to survive without formal punishment.

OP edited to include Dick Armey's cockbagginess as well.

kildy

He's essentially saying that the american people have lost confidence in the government due to earmarks and corruption, and this in some respects justifies violence. Which is, well, not really a justification (at least at this current level of corruption)

But moreover, it's essentially missing the point. The violence hasn't been over corruption and earmarks. It's been over healthcare debate. It's been directed at a president before he even took office. Obama's getting far more death threats than W ever did, according to the secret service. It's just absurd. You can't be pissed off about corruption and earmarks against someone who does not have some absurd record of them, nor has even done all that much as president thus far. This isn't an acceptable "we've had enough!" outburst, it's simply a group of people who believe that when you feel powerless in a situation or marginalized, violence is an acceptable recourse.

Duffel

Cue, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended..."

JaysonFour

Jesus. I watched it and damn near spit my orange juice when he said it. I'd say Coburn just stepped into a big pile of shit and then jammed his foot in his mouth.

Countdown and Rachel Maddow ought to be great tonight. Olbermann and Maddow are going to swing for the fences with this, and rightly so.

There's just some stuff you don't do when it comes to politics. Like telling someone they deserve to have their lives threatened by nutjobs because they think differently or have a different opinion.

What the fuck happened to rational discussion? I've seen middle school mock congresses with more tact and respect than the whole Republican party put together. What, just because you guys blew the election means it's time to act like spoiled grade-schoolers- to bully and lie to people until you get what you want, or you're going to stand there and filibuster it until you're blue in the face?

Show a little maturity, for crying out loud.

Ed321

I'm with kildy on the subject of interpretation. The very same quote the OP highlighted makes it clear he's talking about confidance in the government:

Well, I’m, I’m troubled anytime when we, we stop having confidence in, in our government. But we’ve earned it.

At a stretch you could say he was implying that death threats were deserved, because that's what the question was about. But from what I can see he's just trying to dodge the original question in order to go into attack mode against the administration, rather than be on the defensive talking about death threats etc. - which is where Gregory wants him.

And I dunno about moveon etc., but Bush-Hitler 9/11-Reichstag Fire and US marines-stormtroopers comparisons were all over the place in the past few years, so complaining about it happening now seems pretty dumb. But as Kildy said, this same shit about "blood of tyrants" etc etc. has been going on for a long time in connection to Obama.

Couscous

And I dunno about moveon etc., but Bush-Hitler 9/11-Reichstag Fire and US marines-stormtroopers comparisons were all over the place in the past few years, so complaining about it happening now seems pretty dumb.

Elected officials did that and egged their people on?

I also don't remember much talk of revolution.

Heartlash

I think Coburn is doing the same sad politicking that we see from anyone in a similar position. There are extreme movements that are beneficial to his ideological goals and he doesn't want to offend them. At the same time he doesn't want to directly endorse them, either, so he's trying to walk the fine line by arbitrarily highlighting a "cause". It's a pretty inexcusable shame, really, but not an unexpected one.

Why is Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press, btw? That makes me sad...

Also, I miss Tim Russert so much right now.

Preacher

Couscous wrote: »

And I dunno about moveon etc., but Bush-Hitler 9/11-Reichstag Fire and US marines-stormtroopers comparisons were all over the place in the past few years, so complaining about it happening now seems pretty dumb.

Elected officials did that and egged their people on?

I also don't remember much talk of revolution.

Yeah really the equivelency here is bullshit. Republicans are actively courting birthers where as liberals stayed the fuck away from truthers or the extreme anti war movement. I mean fuck sake it took them a while to even acknowledge the war as a bad idea.

KalTorak

Shaking your head sadly and saying "Oh well, that's what happens to liberals" when the crazies are on your side seems to be par for the course:

Jeffrey Toobin's 'The Nine' wrote:

Just weeks earlier, there had been a pair of horrific attacks on judges and their families. In Chicago, a deranged litigant before federal judge Joan Lefkow broke into her home and murdered her husband and mother, and in Atlanta, a defendant in a rape case killed the judge in his trial and two others in the course of an escape attempt. In a speech on the Senate floor, [Senator John] Cornyn [R-TX] suggested the attacks on judges might have taken place because of decisions like Schiavo. "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country," Cornyn said. "I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence."

JaysonFour

Heartlash wrote: »

Also, I miss Tim Russert so much right now.

Russert would have throttled him then and there. David Gregory =/= Tim Russert. In fact, Gregory < Russert.

nexuscrawler

The sad part is the Pubs strategy is working. they've effetively ended the helath care debate before it started.

Part of the blame falls on Obama and the Dems. The arm twisting should have been done before the issue was brought to the public. The Dems have no way to fight back because they have no united front. They can't argue with a real plan because they don't have a real bill.

also the GOp needs to be entirely cut out of the debate because they're just going t be obstructionist douchebags

cloudeagle

Ah, that's Coburn for you.

Then there's Oklahoma's OTHER senator, Jim Inhoffe, who once claimed climate change is the greatest hoax ever unleashed on humanity (seriously, that's how he phrased it).

Yet these two keep getting re-elected again and again.

Makes me proud to be an Okie.

Aegis

From the context of the initial quote, Coburn seems to be referring more to the tone aspect of the question than the violence aspect; namely, that the loss of confidence in the government and the proposition of changes will naturally lead to more cynicism and displeasement, which, if taken far enough can result in the public acting out their anger through protests like this. He's justifying the negative tone to the public's response to the health care plan as being a result of the loss of confidence of the government.

Now, with KalTorak's post, Cornyn's quite clearly justifying the actual violence.

Ed321

Couscous wrote: »

And I dunno about moveon etc., but Bush-Hitler 9/11-Reichstag Fire and US marines-stormtroopers comparisons were all over the place in the past few years, so complaining about it happening now seems pretty dumb.

Elected officials did that and egged their people on?

I also don't remember much talk of revolution.

MR. GREGORY: All right. But let’s talk about the tone of the debate. There have been death threats against members of Congress, there are Nazi references to members of Congress and to the president. Here are some of the images. The president being called a Nazi, his reform effort being called Nazi-like, referring to Nazi Germany, members of Congress being called the same. And then there was this image this week outside of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a town hall event that the president had, this man with a gun strapped to his leg held that sign, “It is time to water the tree of liberty.” It was a reference to that famous Thomas Jefferson quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” That has become a motto for violence against the government. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, had that very quote on his shirt the day of the bombing of the Murrah building when 168 people were killed.

Isn't that question refering to protestors, not elected representatives/officials? So I'm talking about protestors. But if I'm mistaken and we're talking about elected officials:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4739_52.htm

New York, NY, June 22, 2005 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today accepted the apology of Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) for his remarks comparing the mistreatment of American detainees at Guantanamo Bay with the acts of Nazis during the Holocaust.

"We're glad that Senator Durbin has come to understand why his comments were so painful and inappropriate," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

In a statement read on the Senate floor yesterday, Senator Durbin acknowledged that he had used "a poor choice of words. … I'm sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time."

Mr. Foxman added, "All politicians, regardless of party affiliation or political persuasion, must realize that there is a point when inapt comparisons to the Holocaust become odious, especially when used to make a political point or advance a certain agenda. While there is no taboo against invoking the lessons and memory of the Holocaust, inappropriate comparisons to the Nazis only serve to trivialize genocide and insult the memory of the six million."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/politics/03byrd.html

WASHINGTON, March 2 (AP) - A Jewish Republican group accused Senator Robert C. Byrd on Wednesday of making an "inappropriate and reprehensible" reference to Hitler in criticizing a Senate Republican plan to block Democratic filibusters.

A spokesman for Mr. Byrd, Tom Gavin, denied that the senator, a West Virginia Democrat, had compared Republicans to Nazis, and said that he was simply pointing to lessons from history.

On Tuesday, Mr. Byrd defended filibusters, which can be halted only by 60 votes in the 100-member Senate. He cited Hitler's rise to power in the 1930's, which was accomplished in part by pushing through laws that seemed to legitimize his rule.

"We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men," he said. "But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends."

Mr. Byrd quoted the historian Alan Bullock, saying Hitler "turned the law inside out and made illegality legal." He said the plan to limit filibusters would have a similar effect.

On Wednesday, Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, issued a statement criticizing Mr. Byrd.

"With his knowledge of history and his own personal background as a K.K.K. member, he should be ashamed for implying that his political opponents are using Nazi tactics," Mr. Brooks said.

Mr. Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan as a young man and has apologized for doing so

Transcript of Byrd's entire speech from local news:
http://www.wtrf.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=1237

I just pulled those two out of a quick "senators nazi comparison" google and found some reliable sources.

Preacher

nexuscrawler wrote: »

The sad part is the Pubs strategy is working. they've effetively ended the helath care debate before it started.

Part of the blame falls on Obama and the Dems. The arm twisting should have been done before the issue was brought to the public. The Dems have no way to fight back because they have no united front. They can't argue with a real plan because they don't have a real bill.

also the GOp needs to be entirely cut out of the debate because they're just going t be obstructionist douchebags

I wouldn't throw in the towel yet with regards to healthcare. Though the media sure as fuck isn't helping making a vocal group of assholes look like the whole country. Then they throw out these misleading polls where Independents (which most republicans now identify as) supporting the fuck sticks, gee I wonder why.

kildy

Wait, was that a quote saying that "activist judges" call down murder upon their families? Really? Did we really just try and justify breaking into someone's house and murdering their relatives because **liberalslol**?

There's a fine line between actions having consequences, and actions having disproportionate consequences. Sure, if you back into my car the consequence is that you're paying for the repairs in some manner. But if I murder your daughter over it, it's no longer your goddamned fault in any logical conversation on the topic.

Tomanta

I was only half-watching it, which one said that life expectancy is not an indicator of how good the healthcare system is?

Clint Eastwood

"My comments on the rachel maddow program were misinterpreted. It was not my intention...to offend anyone and I apologize if anyone was offended by my statements."

There you go, I saved us all a lot of posts, because this is how this is going to end.

_J_

I'm surprised that you're focusing upon tom Coburn's douchebaggery rather than Dick Armey's cockheadedness.

Clint Eastwood

Well I guess Dick Armey Is A Big Fat Throbbing Cock would be funnier albeit a very very easy joke...

Preacher

Cloudman wrote: »

"My comments on the rachel maddow program were misinterpreted. It was not my intention...to offend anyone and I apologize if anyone was offended by my statements."

There you go, I saved us all a lot of posts, because this is how this is going to end.

No see Republicans are courting this demographic and democrats are being utter pussies about it, so there will be no apology.

Æthelred

It's a rather a stretch to read Coburn as saying representatives have "earned violence" against themselves. All he said was that government is responsible for its apparent loss of respect from the populace. At most he said that government has provoked these threats; which doesn't excuse them.

Duffel

You never actually apologize or admit you ever did anything wrong, ever. It's the worst thing you can do in American politics, hence why nobody ever does it; it means you lose face in the media narrative.

This is a blog post about Sarah Palin's "death panel" comments, which means it's tangential to this, but I think it sums up the whole "I apologise if anyone was offended" shit pretty well.

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/08/those-pearls-wont-clutch-themselves.html

Those pearls won't clutch themselves

B: You realize what you've done, don't you?

A: Drawn a link between the spreading of malicious falsehoods and the practice commonly referred to as "lying"?

B: Well, yes, that. That's not allowed.

A: "Allowed?"

B: Right. You can say, "Sarah Palin's statement is false," because, you know, it is. And you can say, "Sarah Palin's statement is malicious," because, again, it's generally regarded as a mean thing to say about other people that they want to set up a death panel and kill your handicapped child.

A: I suppose it could be worse. You know, she could have accused health reform advocates of setting up a "buggery panel" in which bureaucrats would take turns ...

B: Yes, well, let's not go there, OK? The point is you're not supposed to mention that her false and malicious statement was also a lie.

A: What, then, am I supposed to do?

B: You're supposed to clutch your pearls, put the back of your hand against your forehead and pretend to be massively, personally offended by her "death panel" comment. Swoon and complain of the vapors and keep it up until Palin responds with her lines.

A: Her lines?

B: Until she says she's sorry that anyone took offense over what she said and that she hadn't intended to hurt the feelings of the bureaucrats lining up to kill her parents and her handicapped son.

A: And what, exactly, would that accomplish?

B: This is America. That's just, you know, how we do it.

A: But that doesn't help. It doesn't fix anything. It leaves her malicious falsehood uncorrected and allows her to skip off tra-la-la with no consequences, without having to account in any way for what she just tried to pull. That just encourages her to try again with something even more ridiculous and outra --

B: But you're not allowed to fix anything. You have a role to play here and if you don't play it properly. Well ...

A: Oh, crap.

B: Yes. Since you failed to clutch and swoon and feign the vapors while taking extravagantly over-the-top offense, that just means somebody else is going to have to do it. They're going to have to pretend that your accusing Palin of lying is even worse -- far, far worse and more outrageous -- than her accusing health care advocates of wanting to set up a buggery panel for her parents and children. They're going to have to pretend that you've accused everyone who disagrees with you of being irredeemably evil.

A: That's what she said.

B: I don't get it.

A: No, I wasn't making a "That's what she said" joke, I was just pointing out that that is, in fact, what Gov. Palin said about those who disagree with her. She didn't use the words "irredeemably evil," but the whole "death panel" for handicapped kids thing attributes lethal, Satanic malevolence to everyone who wants an alternative to the current American health care system. So how does her saying that lead anyone to accuse to me accusing others of ...?

B: You know the game. Just play the damned game.

A: But the game is pointless and boring. Aren't they bored by now with this same shtick? I mean ...

B: It's the ritual. This is what we do in America. You're going to have to play along. Stop accusing liars of lying and just say they offend you, like you're supposed to do. This is American politics, it's not about true or false or right or wrong, it's about your feelings. You're just going to have to learn to play by the rules. Those pearls won't clutch themselves. Now come on, you've been accused, so now it's your turn to apologize.

A: Fine. I'm sorry if anyone was offended when I said that the governor was lying when she accused us all of being homicidal Nazi bureaucrats. I'm sure it was an honest and innocent mistake on her part. That seems the likeliest explanation for what was certainly an incidental and inadvertent misstatement on her part.

B: There. Was that so hard?

Tach

It's really funny how all of this anger and fed-upped-ness with the government started on January 20th, 2009.

Fucking children.

_J_

Tach wrote: »

It's really funny how all of this anger and fed-upped-ness with the government started on January 20th, 2009.

Fucking children.

Fucking racist children.

Gosling

_J_ wrote: »

I'm surprised that you're focusing upon tom Coburn's douchebaggery rather than Dick Armey's cockheadedness.

I can fix that.

_J_

Gosling wrote: »

_J_ wrote: »

I'm surprised that you're focusing upon tom Coburn's douchebaggery rather than Dick Armey's cockheadedness.

I can fix that.

That's better.

Tom Coburn came across as someone who profits off of the health insurance industry. Dick Armey came across as a moron.

Senjutsu

Un-American, Rachel? How dare Nancy Pelosi suggest that drowning out the facts and stifling opposing views is anything less than a proud tradition?

Morgenstern

I don't see him saying that members of Congress have earned threats of violence against them. He pretty blatantly stated that people have lost faith in their representatives and he thinks that a lot of representatives have lost that sense of trust in their capabilities.

Preacher

Senjutsu wrote: »

Un-American, Rachel? How dare Nancy Pelosi suggest that drowning out the facts and stifling opposing views is anything less than a proud tradition?

It's sad that what you said in sarcasm is an opinion held in earnest by a larger than it should be group of people.

Gosling

Morgenstern wrote: »

I don't see him saying that members of Congress have earned threats of violence against them. He pretty blatantly stated that people have lost faith in their representatives and he thinks that a lot of representatives have lost that sense of trust in their capabilities.

No, Gregory asked him his response to all the threats of violence and, whatever wording about 'confidence' he cradled it in, he explicitly said it's been earned. I think he only used the word 'confidence' because he wanted some measure of plausible deniability.

Aegis

Gosling wrote: »

Morgenstern wrote: »

I don't see him saying that members of Congress have earned threats of violence against them. He pretty blatantly stated that people have lost faith in their representatives and he thinks that a lot of representatives have lost that sense of trust in their capabilities.

No, Gregory asked him his response to all the threats of violence and, whatever wording about 'confidence' he cradled it in, he explicitly said it's been earned. I think he only used the word 'confidence' because he wanted some measure of plausible deniability.

No, Gregory asked him about the tone and the violence (two separate issues) in the same question and Coburn explicitly talked about the tone in the context of his reference to confidence. He never said violence was earned. He said that the loss of confidence in the government leading to incensed opinions on the health care debate was earned.

Ed321

Gosling wrote: »

Morgenstern wrote: »

I don't see him saying that members of Congress have earned threats of violence against them. He pretty blatantly stated that people have lost faith in their representatives and he thinks that a lot of representatives have lost that sense of trust in their capabilities.

No, Gregory asked him his response to all the threats of violence and, whatever wording about 'confidence' he cradled it in, he explicitly said it's been earned. I think he only used the word 'confidence' because he wanted some measure of plausible deniability.

I still say he ignored the original question in order to go on offense. Watch any interview with someone who has been trained how to handle/spin themselves and you'll see the process of turning a question that would put you on the defensive into an oppotunity to shift the focus onto something else.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but you just described a textbook example of an implicit statement, not an explicit one.

edit: grr Aegis

Gosling

See, this is where I usually say something like "oh, I was only two letters off".

So I'll do that.

Ed321

Gosling wrote: »

See, this is where I usually say something like "oh, I was only two letters off".

So I'll do that.

Well admitting you have a problem is the first step towards something something something etc.

Yar

I think there isn't as much here as we all would like there to be.

First of all, the entire line of questioning is a setup. A legitimate setup, but a setup nonetheless. As I've mentioned before, politics almost never gets past a simple pro- or con-. Either you're for Democratic health care reform, or against. This line of questioning was an attempt to split that, to pull out the extreme characters and then make a leading figure denounce them. In the game of politics, his response had to come in the form of "anti-Democratic-health-care-reform" and I think he did a good job of that by pointing out that these people represent a loss of confidence in government and questioning why that is.

His response was valid. He's troubled by them but thinks we should be looking at why such characters are showing up on this issue.

I know 9/11 is like a political Godwin, but seriously, thousands of people were murdered that day and there was still significant discussions on looking into why terrorists were driven to that. And in this case we're just talking about people using ignornant emotional symbolism to argue against over-reaching government. You can be against extremism while at the same time making a point about what prompted the extremists to emerge. Naturally, to drive home a political or philosophical point of view, the person on the other side of the discussion will probably try to force you to just be 100% against it and any intellectual wiggle room wil be twisted to mean that you support the extremists and should be run out of town on a rail.

kildy

Tach wrote: »

It's really funny how all of this anger and fed-upped-ness with the government started on January 20th, 2009.

Fucking children.

To be fair: it started in November 08.

Salvation122

I like Yar's last paragraph.

Coburn's pretty much always a dick, though.

Hacksaw

We really just need to forcibly kick the South out of the union. For the most part, they've only been a burden and an obstacle in modern political discourse, and I see no reason to keep them at the table if they're going to continue to be a big basket full of assholes like this.

Doc

They are setting it up so that when some nut on their side finally does kill someone (er, again), they can go "SEE! IT PROVES OUR POINT! THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF CONTROL AND IT'S DRIVING PEOPLE TO VIOLENCE!"

This isn't so much about the transcript in the OP so much as the "outraged" people as a whole.

deadonthestreet

Does anyone know what Move On ad he was referring to? Does it exist?