Steny Hoyer: Members are at risk

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bless her, Sarah isn't all there.

Neither are those that worship her. It's a dangerous mix.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, I question how dangerous. My guess is they get off on angry rhetoric more than actually acting out their fantasies.

I mean, VJ has a collection of these angry people, and they seem satisfied with posting 'funny' videos

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, I question how dangerous. My guess is they get off on angry rhetoric more than actually acting out their fantasies.

I think the proof is in the pudding:

Virginia Rep. Tom Perriello (D) issued this statement about the news that his brother's gas line was cut, after the home address was posted on a local Tea Party Web sites mistakenly believing it was the congressman's home.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think that is much a do about very little - not nothing, but...

Edited March 25, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think that is much a do about very little - not nothing, but...

Well, I don't think it's very little. Wouldn't be surprised if we meet the next Tim McVeigh before long.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Real nuts believe whatever the president and the ** Congress tell them.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting - well, with the exception of Sarah "don't-retreat-instead-reload" Palin. But clearly, they've been fanning the flames and working hard to stir up a frenzy that has gone far beyond what's civil and acceptable and seemingly far beyond what they can control.

Those cross-hairs ain't co-incidental. And if you think that there aren't enough nuts out there that take the message literally, well...

Edited March 25, 2010 by Sofiyya

[scandal 951]

I think the proof is in the pudding:

I think you're right, and that it's never an over-reaction to take threats - and now even violent actions - extremely seriously.

Here is the statement of Rep. Perriello from the above link. Well stated.

My number one priority right now is ensuring the safety of my brother's family, and I am grateful to law enforcement for their excellent work. While it is too early to say anything definitive regarding political motivations behind this act, it's never too early for political leaders to condemn threats of violence, particularly as threats to other Members of Congress and their children escalate. And so I ask every member of House and Senate leadership to state unequivocally tonight that it is never OK to harm or threaten elected officials and their families with anything more than political retribution. Here in America, we settle our political differences at the ballot box.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Real nuts believe whatever the president and the ** Congress tell them.

Well, the picture is pretty clear. Cross-hairs? Reload? Maybe you slept trough math class when they taught addition: 1+1=2.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Better beware the violence the Dims are going to do to your wallet

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, I don't think it's very little. Wouldn't be surprised if we meet the next Tim McVeigh before long.

There's always a chance that someone will get nutsy about any issue. While I don't particularly care for angry rhetoric, I don't actually think one can go so far as to blame subsequent unlawful actions by those who listen to such rhetoric on those who spout it. The real nutters, the ones that will go out and behave violently don't really need an excuse to do it. I just don't think that someone who is normally sane and rational will take it any further than lawful protest.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well, the picture is pretty clear. Cross-hairs? Reload? Maybe you slept trough math class when they taught addition: 1+1=2.

So? Both have been used before many times in political speech. Nothing new here, not even the hyperbole of those trying to sensationalize it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's always a chance that someone will get nutsy about any issue. While I don't particularly care for angry rhetoric, I don't actually think one can go so far as to blame subsequent unlawful actions by those who listen to such rhetoric on those who spout it. The real nutters, the ones that will go out and behave violently don't really need an excuse to do it. I just don't think that someone who is normally sane and rational will take it any further than lawful protest.

Yes, but the crowds that have been stirred up contain enough elements that don't meet these criteria. It's going to take some effort to put that genie back into the bottle. And I think it's time that such effort is made.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, but the crowds that have been stirred up contain enough elements that don't meet these criteria. It's going to take some effort to put that genie back into the bottle. And I think it's time that such effort is made.

We're going to have to agree to disagree I think. I believe it's up to the law agencies to take the necessary action. I also think it's disingenuous to put the onus on Republican politicians as if they have any influence on the nuttier elements - to be quite honest, I don't think they do.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This rhetoric about crowds being "stirred" up inplies a Pavlov's dogs type of control over otherwise normal people. People are stirred up because there is a minority temporarily in charge of the federal government, who, instead of acting like caretakers and governing, are behaving as if they have bene mandated to change the culture and definition of this country overnight. You'd have to be a moron not to admit that it is natural for people to resist the rejection of their values and ethics for something that cheapens the nation. For liberals, change is about force and control. For conservatives, resistance is about love of country.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.