Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest

[ready4ONE 5,400]

But seriously - one protest 7 years ago Vs many protests today?

There are any number of reasons why the press might not have covered the 2002 event - if its the same one I'm thinking about, the Portland police were heavily criticised for using tear gas and rubber bullets against the protesters.

All at a time when the administration was pushing a case for war... In fact, I'd say that the press dropped the ball entirely in its analysis of the build-up to the Iraq war.

That was just one of many protests where hateful speech has been used by the left. In comparison the townhall protests have been respectful. Don't tell me you don't remember the wild and sometimes violent left wing protests that occured throughout Bush's two terms. None of that is happening now, at least not to that degree. But to listen to Steven talk the riot squad needs to bring out the water cannons when the right shows up.

I agree ####### for tat is weak.

Also, not sure how you compare a past President enacting laws enabling limitless wiretapping without warrants, the incarceration of American citizens, and anyone else deemed a potential 'terrorist' without a right to counsel, or right to trial, along with purposely misleading Congress, the public, and a fair portion of the free world into an unnecessary war in Iraq all of which could lead to allegations of Fascism to a President who wants to go forward with his vision of fixing a clearly broken health care system, and calling it Fascism...

I don't think I am a rabid socialist liberal on a lot of issues, but let the name calling begin...

Edited August 13, 2009 by ready4ONE

[GaryC 7]

But seriously - one protest 7 years ago Vs many protests today?

There are any number of reasons why the press might not have covered the 2002 event - if its the same one I'm thinking about, the Portland police were heavily criticised for using tear gas and rubber bullets against the protesters.

All at a time when the administration was pushing a case for war... In fact, I'd say that the press dropped the ball entirely in its analysis of the build-up to the Iraq war.

That was just one of many protests where hateful speech has been used by the left. In comparison the townhall protests have been respectful. Don't tell me you don't remember the wild and sometimes violent left wing protests that occured throughout Bush's two terms. None of that is happening now, at least not to that degree. But to listen to Steven talk the riot squad needs to bring out the water cannons when the right shows up.

I agree ####### for tat is weak.

Also, not sure how you compare a past President enacting laws enabling limitless wiretapping without warrants, the incarceration of American citizens, and anyone else deemed a potential 'terrorist' without a right to counsel, or right to trial, along with purposely misleading Congress, the public, and a fair portion of the free world into an unnecessary war in Iraq all of which could lead to allegations of Fascism to a President who wants to go forward with his vision of fixing a clearly broken health care system, and calling it Fascism...

I don't think I am a rabid socialist liberal on a lot of issues, but let the name calling begin...

Ah, so if it is something YOU find objectionable then it is OK to raise hell, but if is something I feel strongly about raising my voice is enough to draw condemnation. Very nice.

ETA.. Oh, and most of the things you cite as worthy of near riots are still going on. Where are the protests against that?

Edited August 13, 2009 by GaryC

[ready4ONE 5,400]

But seriously - one protest 7 years ago Vs many protests today?

There are any number of reasons why the press might not have covered the 2002 event - if its the same one I'm thinking about, the Portland police were heavily criticised for using tear gas and rubber bullets against the protesters.

All at a time when the administration was pushing a case for war... In fact, I'd say that the press dropped the ball entirely in its analysis of the build-up to the Iraq war.

That was just one of many protests where hateful speech has been used by the left. In comparison the townhall protests have been respectful. Don't tell me you don't remember the wild and sometimes violent left wing protests that occured throughout Bush's two terms. None of that is happening now, at least not to that degree. But to listen to Steven talk the riot squad needs to bring out the water cannons when the right shows up.

I agree ####### for tat is weak.

Also, not sure how you compare a past President enacting laws enabling limitless wiretapping without warrants, the incarceration of American citizens, and anyone else deemed a potential 'terrorist' without a right to counsel, or right to trial, along with purposely misleading Congress, the public, and a fair portion of the free world into an unnecessary war in Iraq all of which could lead to allegations of Fascism to a President who wants to go forward with his vision of fixing a clearly broken health care system, and calling it Fascism...

I don't think I am a rabid socialist liberal on a lot of issues, but let the name calling begin...

Ah, so if it is something YOU find objectionable then it is OK to raise hell, but if is something I feel strongly about raising my voice is enough to draw condemnation. Very nice.

ETA.. Oh, and most of the things you cite as worthy of near riots are still going on. Where are the protests against that?

Fairly sure our Constitution and long established rule of law are against the Patriot Act, and yep, still with us.

[nowhereman 1]

But seriously - one protest 7 years ago Vs many protests today?

There are any number of reasons why the press might not have covered the 2002 event - if its the same one I'm thinking about, the Portland police were heavily criticised for using tear gas and rubber bullets against the protesters.

All at a time when the administration was pushing a case for war... In fact, I'd say that the press dropped the ball entirely in its analysis of the build-up to the Iraq war.

That was just one of many protests where hateful speech has been used by the left. In comparison the townhall protests have been respectful. Don't tell me you don't remember the wild and sometimes violent left wing protests that occured throughout Bush's two terms. None of that is happening now, at least not to that degree. But to listen to Steven talk the riot squad needs to bring out the water cannons when the right shows up.

I agree ####### for tat is weak.

Also, not sure how you compare a past President enacting laws enabling limitless wiretapping without warrants, the incarceration of American citizens, and anyone else deemed a potential 'terrorist' without a right to counsel, or right to trial, along with purposely misleading Congress, the public, and a fair portion of the free world into an unnecessary war in Iraq all of which could lead to allegations of Fascism to a President who wants to go forward with his vision of fixing a clearly broken health care system, and calling it Fascism...

I don't think I am a rabid socialist liberal on a lot of issues, but let the name calling begin...

Ah, so if it is something YOU find objectionable then it is OK to raise hell, but if is something I feel strongly about raising my voice is enough to draw condemnation. Very nice.

ETA.. Oh, and most of the things you cite as worthy of near riots are still going on. Where are the protests against that?

Gary condoning right wing nut case antics because left wing nut cases did a similar thing is just plain stupid, sorry.

[Heracles 417]

The irony is that many of these guys are behaving in the same way that they mocked from those against going to war. Personally, I just thought that was liberal yank antics so I chastised them too. Now that I see conservatives behaving the same way, I think this is just a group of clowns on both ends of the spectrum.

It's like, you guys lost the election so get over it. Same goes with during the Bush years. Dems lost, therefore, within reason and the boundaries of the checks and balances, Bush should have been allowed to do as he believes; which he did. Considering this is such a winner takes all culture, you do have a lot of sore losers.

Edited August 13, 2009 by haza

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thing is... there was very little (if any) overt criticism of the Bush administration in the US during the build-up to the Iraq war.

Could be the 9/11 effect - there was very little media criticism of anything the old administration did until about mid-late 2003 - 2004.

I guess the thinking being that at a time of supposed national unity, writing derogatory pieces about the government was somehow in bad taste.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Private Pike

[nowhereman 1]

The irony is that many of these guys are behaving in the same way that they mocked from those against going to war. Personally, I just thought that was liberal yank antics so I chastised them too. Now that I see conservatives behaving the same way, I think this is just a group of clowns on both ends of the spectrum.

It's like, you guys lost the election so get over it. Same goes with during the Bush years. Dems lost, therefore, within reason and the boundaries of the checks and balances, Bush should have been allowed to do as he believes; which he did. Considering this is such a winner takes all culture, you do have a lot of sore losers.

It's not that simple... there were genuine & legitimate issues with what Bush did (going to war with Iraq based on trumped up intel was probably the worst offense). To add insult to injury the Bush administration went out of their way to piss on the democrats at every opportunity, which of course made the dems very resentful. Now you have the dems in power & you are seeing some of the same things (on both sides) that you saw during the Bush years. Its the Hatfield vs. the McCoys on a national level.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There were legitimate concerns - but the press wasn't covering them in 2001 or 2002. Pretty much everything halfway critical of the Bush administration at that time came out of the foreign media.

Its just hilarious how these comparisons are made - lets just pull two events many years apart out of a hat and look for a smoking gun in why one gets coverage and one doesn't. Historical context be damned!

Edited August 13, 2009 by Private Pike

[Heracles 417]

I agree there though. Fighting to not go to war is about saving lives. Fighting to prevent medical reform is about allowing people to die. Country first my ####. More like, what's in it for me.

I cannot believe I supported such a dumb party for all these years. They're nothing like conservatives back home. For starters, they don't know how to manage money for ######. They cause the recession after being in office for 8 years yet claim Obama caused it in 8 months. They start pointless wars, solely to generate their buds money and now they are against health care reform. Reform that will save the lives of American; yes, these same people you apparently started a war to protect. Even in my area, all forms of progress are blocked by repubs.

I was attacking the wrong guys all along. Still hate the lib attitude, however, at least their heart is generally in the right place. My favorite is we demand you don't abort the child but sure as hell refuse to assist the parents raise the child.

Edited August 13, 2009 by haza

[HAL 9000 96]

What is the purpose of this sort of analysis? What is it actually supposed to prove?

That two wrongs make a right apparently. A Right. Get it... ?

But to be honest... I don't remember droves of protesters drowning out legitimate discussion back in the Bush era. People got to talk on both sides of the issue aisle. Here and now it seems that one side is just being silly to drown out any real chance of a legitimate discussion.

Which makes me think about what the political backlash could turn out for these folks as they continue burrowing themselves down the hole they're digging for themselves faster and faster.

Your right.

Weird. I'm sure anyone can google the context to that too. They don't look very irate either. But I did underline the part from my text you put in bold that is perhaps more telling.

But seriously - one protest 7 years ago Vs many protests today?

There are any number of reasons why the press might not have covered the 2002 event - if its the same one I'm thinking about, the Portland police were heavily criticised for using tear gas and rubber bullets against the protesters.

All at a time when the administration was pushing a case for war... In fact, I'd say that the press dropped the ball entirely in its analysis of the build-up to the Iraq war.

That was just one of many protests where hateful speech has been used by the left. In comparison the townhall protests have been respectful. Don't tell me you don't remember the wild and sometimes violent left wing protests that occured throughout Bush's two terms. None of that is happening now, at least not to that degree. But to listen to Steven talk the riot squad needs to bring out the water cannons when the right shows up.

I agree ####### for tat is weak.

Also, not sure how you compare a past President enacting laws enabling limitless wiretapping without warrants, the incarceration of American citizens, and anyone else deemed a potential 'terrorist' without a right to counsel, or right to trial, along with purposely misleading Congress, the public, and a fair portion of the free world into an unnecessary war in Iraq all of which could lead to allegations of Fascism to a President who wants to go forward with his vision of fixing a clearly broken health care system, and calling it Fascism...

I don't think I am a rabid socialist liberal on a lot of issues, but let the name calling begin...

Ah, so if it is something YOU find objectionable then it is OK to raise hell, but if is something I feel strongly about raising my voice is enough to draw condemnation. Very nice.

ETA.. Oh, and most of the things you cite as worthy of near riots are still going on. Where are the protests against that?

No I think the protests in the past had more to do with our government being held up to standards of a democracy. Sure, some folks will rightfully confuse socialism with a system of governing too I suppose.

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

What is the purpose of this sort of analysis? What is it actually supposed to prove?

That two wrongs make a right apparently. A Right. Get it... ?

But to be honest... I don't remember droves of protesters drowning out legitimate discussion back in the Bush era. People got to talk on both sides of the issue aisle. Here and now it seems that one side is just being silly to drown out any real chance of a legitimate discussion.

Which makes me think about what the political backlash could turn out for these folks as they continue burrowing themselves down the hole they're digging for themselves faster and faster.

Your right.

Can you explain how the people in this picture are "drowning out debate" since this is the picture you chose to demonstrate the "droves" on the "left" shouting people down and drowning out debate.

The problem with the article, and with all your posts, is that they are filled with fallacies, half truths, false equivalences and logical errors. Now, I understand that you do all that to support your religious belief in your chosen ideology but it makes for difficult discussion. Every reference to reality is met with more distortions and silly logical fallacies. So when you present a picture of some smiling ladies holding a sign and attempt to create an equivalence to people screaming nonsense to disrupt any chance for rational debate, it is difficult for those of us still connected to reality to figure out what your point is. In the end, your point is that your religion is the true religion, no matter how many ways you need to contradict reality to prove it.

So the "nuts" on both sides are the nuts. There will always be nuts. What we have now are people organized and advised by lobbyists and encouraged by America's Pravda to go to meetings where discussions of reality should take place and being told to "shout early and often" and "prevent any intelligent conversation from taking place." Yes, us "nuts" on the left think intelligent conversation is a good thing and it would be great for us if the right stopped making nonsensical and false statements and joined in some intelligent conversation.

These "patriots" who are helping to insure that the lack of intelligence is the basis for our decisions are screaming such amazing statements as "Keep the government out of Healthcare but don't touch my Medicare!" Demonstrating a very deep understanding of the issues at hand, right?

They are constantly talking about "death panels". Is there anything that has been proposed by anyone concerning "death panels"? Of course not. What basis in reality is cited? That we physicians would be encouraged (as we are already now in the "Welcome to Medicare" physical benefit) to ask people over 65 if they have a will and have designated a health care proxy to make decisions for them if they are ever in a position where they can't make them for themselves. And your here to tell us that I've euthanized all those people and turned them into soylent green, right?

The "intelligent", "lively" "debate" that you find this inanity to be is nothing more than the health care lobbyists and republicans exploiting the least intelligent for their own purposes. They are fed lies about "death panels" and about health systems like the UK & Canada and told how outraged they should be. They parade a woman with a benign intracranial cyst around to complain that she had to wait too long for her "cancer" to be treated in Canada so she had to come to the US. Since it supports your beliefs you probably find it irrelevant that she lies about having cancer and about the fact that she was put on the list exactly where she should have been with people having elective procedures and behind those who actually in reality had cancer. They lie to UK citizens about their intentions and create an ad that both women say misrepresents their views on their country's health system.

To go through that Fox article and point out the false statements and logical fallicies is like shooting fish in a barrel. But it would have the same effect on you as if I tried to convince Tom Cruise and John Travolta that lost spirits don't congregate around volcanoes and attach themselves to passerbys. It's there religion and it's true for them, no matter how divorced from reality it is. The Fox Religion is yours and no matter how many lies and logical fallicies we might point out in it, you will believe it on faith and all the members of your religion will cheer you on, as religious cohorts always do. Don't let those non-believers shake your faith with their talk of reality!

In fact, the left never organized the simpleminded to go and "prevent intelligent conversation". We never feared intelligent conversation would undermine our goals. In fact, the previous regime and its cronies were allowed to go on spreading all kinds of falsehoods that were dilligently reported by the "left leaning" press. When they were respectfully challenged with the fact that their claims were demonstrably false, the challengers were called traitors, and not by the left.

You know as well as anyone that your arguments are false and contrived but you make them to defend your "faith" in the people who have promised you "salvation". I understand that lots of religious people do that but you are pretending to have a conversation about politics and health care in THIS REALITY with lies, half truths, straw men and rhetorical blunders that would get a freshman debater laughed off the team. Keep your religion. Keep it out of our politics. When you worship at the altar of Fox News, banter with your friends about the bizarre beliefs of your faith. Don't try to pretend you're talking about reality. It confuses people and creates discord when others don't realize that you are a true believer in the Fox faith and appeals to reality are meaningless to you.

There is no reason to bring your religion to VJ and if you do, start a forum for your fellow religious fanatics and discuss your faith in peace.

Or set aside your faith, stop appealing to lies and false logic and honestly discuss reality. THAT would really be patriotic and helpful. The vast majority of people you call left would be happy to discuss reality with you, if you can find your way back.

[Danno 1,228]

I was attacking the wrong guys all along. Still hate the lib attitude, however, at least their heart is generally in the right place. My favorite is we demand you don't abort the child but sure as hell refuse to assist the parents raise the child.

PLease explain this, I don't know of any bill or other action put forth to cut welfare from destitute mothers.

On the other hand, go to Planned parenthood and see what they will do for you if you don't want to buy an abortion.

In almost every city in the country there is local groups which pay for food clothes goods for single mothers.

We all know what groups contribute time and money in this work now explain who it is that is wanting to kick newborns to the street?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I was attacking the wrong guys all along. Still hate the lib attitude, however, at least their heart is generally in the right place. My favorite is we demand you don't abort the child but sure as hell refuse to assist the parents raise the child.

I suppose their hearts are in the right place if you agree that forcing people to do things against their will and ignoring facts is what's right.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

That kind of behavior is just wrong, Gary. Have you read anyone here defending it from the Left? So why are so many of you Right Wingers defending such behavior when it's lunatics from your camp?

I didn't see the "outrage" from your side over it like the trumped up outrage we are getting now. In fact, the only violence we have seen at the health care protests have been union thugs beating up on those that choose to express their opinions. Just look at your words, you describe those that disagree as "lunatics". You need to step back and look at yourself in the mirror.

I am sure what the comment implied was, all of the persons behaving like this, be they those at the Bush Portland conference so long ago, or those attending the health care meetings today are "lunatics." That was how I interpreted the comment anyway.

I didn't vote for Bush, thought a fair amount of things he did were wrong, but never once participated in any activity remotely resembling the things allegedly occurring during that Bush meeting per the FauxNews article of the OP.

It is possible to disagree, and not resort to the ridiculously low level behaviors we are seeing today, or at the Bush meeting cited.

I was attacking the wrong guys all along. Still hate the lib attitude, however, at least their heart is generally in the right place. My favorite is we demand you don't abort the child but sure as hell refuse to assist the parents raise the child.

I suppose their hearts are in the right place if you agree that forcing people to do things against their will and ignoring facts is what's right.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I was attacking the wrong guys all along. Still hate the lib attitude, however, at least their heart is generally in the right place. My favorite is we demand you don't abort the child but sure as hell refuse to assist the parents raise the child.

PLease explain this, I don't know of any bill or other action put forth to cut welfare from destitute mothers.

On the other hand, go to Planned parenthood and see what they will do for you if you don't want to buy an abortion.

In almost every city in the country there is local groups which pay for food clothes goods for single mothers.

We all know what groups contribute time and money in this work now explain who it is that is wanting to kick newborns to the street?

It is hard to explain anything to someone so bent they keep a goofy "It isn't Fascism if we do it" meaning the Democrats image in their signature for three months.