Pelosi on Name Calling and Divisive Rhetoric

Referencing the political and ideological violence in 1970s San Francisco, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said "I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made." (Watch video here.)

In relation to Pelosi's comments, most observers have focused on the horrific killings of Harvey Milk and SF Mayor George Moscone, but it's worth remembering that the Bay Area suffered under wide-ranging ideologically motivated violence back in the day, including shootings such as "the Zebra killings," actions by the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Black Panthers, the People's Temple, and more. And that the most recent act of actual overt political violence may be an anti-abortion activist who was gunned down (the killer's motivation is not clear).

But is a serious threat of real violence hanging heavy over today's political disputes? Despite the intense, spirited language, and often-ugly signs—and what seems to be one incident of a gun-toting protester at a single event (the Arizona display of firepower was a radio stunt)—the answer is no (as even The Nation observed after a passel of Town Halls and other demonstrations, "there has in fact been very little violence and no gunplay at all.") Matt Welch and Jesse Walker have both pointed out the ways in which dissent from the dominant center—and let's not forget that Democrats hold the White House and Congress—is often tarred as paranoid, dangerous, and violent. It's an easy way to marginalize those who disagree with you. As is dismissing those who disagree with you as racist, as Jimmy Carter did (to its credit, the Obama White House immediately distanced itself from Carter's comments).

But maybe we do need to push the reset button, especially when it comes to actual elected politicians (there is very little anyone can or should do about professional media blowhards such as Rush Limbaugh).

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) did deserve to be reprimanded for his pathetic and puerile outburst during President Obama's speech. As Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) put it, regardless of any context, "I believe that it's important to maintain the rules of decorum of the House and I supported its passage." And a few years back, maybe Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) should have gotten in trouble for claiming on the House floor that George W. Bush and the Republicans were sending kids to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement." This sort of stuff, even if I happen to agree (more or less) with each statement, does nothing to engage me or other unwashed masses.

That kind of rhetoric certainly didn't up the level of debate, any more than a near-decade of Chimpy McHitler and Bushitler japes. Or, for that matter, Speaker Pelosi's consistent characterizations of people who disagree with her as "un-American," or "unpatriotic." She's famously fond of dissenters who agree with her ("It's always exciting," she told a group of anti-war hecklers in 2006), but that's too easy by half.

The Democrats control the government. If they can't pass their legislation, it's not because of Rush Limbaugh or even Joe Wilson, who were never on their team. It's easy to wave the bloody shirt of potential political violence, but in the end, when it comes to health care reform or whatever, the reason Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) or Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) or whomever isn't voting their way isn't because of Michael Savage or a latter-day John Brown. And it's probably not even because of incendiary rhetoric, but just plain-old unconvincing rhetoric. Like the idea that a vaguely defined "reform" that will cost $900 billion over 10 years will actually reduce government spending.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Nick,

    If I am not mistaken Milk and Moscone were killed by a disgruntled soon to be former Democratic officeholder whom Milk didn't reappoint to some do nothing patronage job. It was certainly a tragedy. But, it had nothing to do with Milk being gay as Pelosi implies. But, maybe she is worried about some out of work SEIU or ACORN thug taking revenge on her.

  • Attorney||

    japes

    That's not something I expected. Nice work.

  • ||

    But maybe we do need to push the reset button, especially when it comes to actual elected politicians

    If by "push the reset button" you mean throw them the fuck out of office, I would agree.

    If you only mean they should drink their tea out of bone china with their pinkies raised thusly, I couldn't care less.

  • ||

    One of the side effects of all this will be to make the term "racist" a punchline rather than an insult. I am not sure if that is a good thing. But, it is what is going to happen.

  • Tomcat1066||

    If Pelosi is worried about violence, then she probably should have thought about that before calling town hall protesters all sorts of names, hm?

  • ||

    Come see the violence inherent in the system! Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

  • King of the Britons||

    Be quiet!

    Bloody peasant!

  • ||

    Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) did deserve to be reprimanded for his pathetic and puerile outburst during President Obama's speech. As Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) put it, regardless of any context, "I believe that it's important to maintain the rules of decorum of the House and I supported its passage."

    I completely disagree with this sentiment. We need more people calling bullshit, not less. Everytime a politician opens his yap and spews bullshit, there needs to be not one, but a big huge chorus of people calling bullshit. And maybe not a kindly "bullshit," but a "You're a fucking liar and we know it."

    The idea that someone would be admonished for telling the truth is inimical to reason. Valid deductive arguments, the very things this magazine tries to engage the political world with, aren't working. And what are you supposed to do when an entire political system is immune to reason?

  • Meta4||

    Keep fucking that chicken, Nancy!

  • ||

    Did you hear that? Who does he think he is?

  • ||

    When I call you an ignorant baboon, it's okay, because it's true.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    I just never get it when government people talk about politically or ideologically motivated violence as if it's a real threat from ordinary people...

    Over the course of the 20th Century, governments around the world were responsible for killing around 200,000,000 of their own citizens. Not as collateral damage in wars either, just straight up starved, murdered and dominated their people to death - almost always for some kind of religious/ethnic hatred or simply because the leadership would do anything to maintain their power.

    200 Million. WTF. And in a country of 300 million, one guy who carries a gun to a protest and doesn't even do anything with it is held up to be the boogeyman? Psh.

  • creech||

    So when the little kid observes, finally, that the Emperor is naked, we take him out and spank him?
    We need Mencken.

  • tankrunner1123||

    People are assholes, Pelosi should realize that fact.

  • ||

    1856: "Congressman Preston Brooks, attacked Sumner in the Senate chamber with a cane, declaring "you have libeled my State and slandered a relative who is aged and absent, and I am come to punish you for it." Struck thirty times, Sumner crumpled to a bloody heap on the Senate floor."

    Hit the Reset button Nick? Really?

  • ||

  • Joe M||

    +1 to Sean.

  • ||

    The White Night riots were a series of violent events sparked by an announcement of the lenient sentencing of Dan White, for the assassinations of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk, an openly gay San Francisco supervisor. The events took place on the night of May 21, 1979 in San Francisco. Earlier that day, White had been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, the lightest possible conviction for his actions.

    The gay community of San Francisco had a long-standing conflict with the San Francisco Police Department. White's status as a former policeman intensified the community's anger at the SFPD. Initial demonstrations took place as a peaceful march through the Castro district of San Francisco. After the crowd arrived at the San Francisco City Hall, it quickly became violent. The events caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage to City Hall and the surrounding area, as well as injuries to both police officers and rioters.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Night_riots

    Is this the violence Pelosi is worried about? Does she think the gays are going to go on a rampage over the DOMA? It is amazing how these twits re-write history. Milk was kild by a disgruntled Demorcratic office holder. And the only political violence that resulted from it was gays rioting over the murderer's light sentence. Yeah, it was crazed right wing violence allright.

  • Xeones||

    Hit the Reset button Nick? Really?

    Really. More congresscritters getting caned to within an inch of their lives would be a good, just, and hilarious thing.

  • T||

    Just as an aside, does Nick realize in the hardcore gun rights community "push the reset button" is code for violently overthrow the government and kill all the politicians? Just sayin'...

  • ||

    You have to love the cognitive dissonance of a high-ranking government official who has access to large forces of armed men to be caterwauling about a few protesters showing up, *legally*, at rallies with weapons and never discharging them.

    Of course, Nancy, bravo to you for picking up on the unstated message: You govern at our consent.

    I love the smell of arrogant fear in the morning.

  • ||

    Xenoes,

    How about Saturday night media gasbag MMA? Every Saturday have one annoying gasbag take on another from the other side.

    Andrew Sullivan versus Glen Beck
    Glenn Greenwald versus Michael Savage
    Ezra Klein versus Rush Limbaugh
    And then a special girl fight
    Michelle Malkin versus Rachel Madow

    Each in a no holds bared MMA cage match.

  • ||

    Over the course of the 20th Century, governments around the world were responsible for killing around 200,000,000 of their own citizens. Not as collateral damage in wars either, just straight up starved, murdered and dominated their people to death - almost always for some kind of religious/ethnic hatred or simply because the leadership would do anything to maintain their power.

    No kidding. When the government says that they need to break few eggs to enforce drug laws (by repealing the 4th amendment), zoning laws (by repealing portions of the 5th amendment), immigration laws (killing brown people), etc., we, the public are to supposed to bend over the rail obsequiously and take our non-lubricated ass fucking.

    But when the public wants to return the sentiment (and our manifestation of breaking eggs is the audacity to exercise first and second amendment rights, so far) of breaking a few eggs of the government, then there is this histrionic panic and concern over a lack of incivility.

  • ||

    Civility is what I think I meant. Homer says d'oh.

  • Mike M.||

    Pelosi must spend a lot of time on the internet; she makes a pretty good concern troll.

  • Daran||

    I've got nothing against decorum, but let's be consistent! Booing, catcalls, etc. are just as bad as yelling "You lie!". The bullshit meter is high anyway you look at it.

  • ||

    ." And a few years back, maybe Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) should have gotten in trouble for claiming on the House floor that George W. Bush and the Republicans were sending kids to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."

    This is what drives me nuts about Reason. I dont' remember Reason having any problem with Stark at the time. And Nick only says maybe Stark should have been diciplined for saying that Bush is sending American soldiers to their death for fun. But, Nick has no doubt that Wilson should be diciplined for telling Obama that he was lying.

    In the end, Reason can never be as hard on Democrats as they are on Republicans. It doesn't matter how craven or hypicritical Dems are.

  • ||

    And of course Nick admits that maybe Stark went to far four years later when it no longer matters and only for the purpose of slamming on Wilson. If Stark was wrong in 05, where the hell was Reason then Nick?

  • ||

    Violence?

    Dennis: Nooo, no of course we shouldn't bash these people up. Look, ok, absolutely we could cave the husband's skull in here. Yes. We could take the wife down to the basement have a frenzied free-for-all with her. We could tie the kids up in their little rooms upstairs, so they wouldn't hear anything...

    Mac: In that scenario you'd have to kill the kids because they would have seen our faces.

    Dennis: Right, we could smear the walls with their blood, guys...there are any number of twisted scenarios that could play out here. But the easiest thing, really, is to just go get the deed.

    Charlie: Right, why get weird?

  • ||

    The more "disrespectful" tone we are seeing really IS a sign of a growign danger of violence. Politicians and MSM are actually correct on this point.

    Extreme violence IN THIS country is a very real possibility if the governemnt keeps moving in the direction it has been going the last 10 years.

    Joe Wilson shouting "you lie" is not a CAUSE for this! It is a result of thousands of very angry constiteunts. A breakdown in decorum or manners amongst politicians is a neccesity in order to AVOID violence. Politics in this country have to change drastically in order to avoid the extreme violence that could be coming.

    Clamping down on "manners" is about the stupidest short term rectionary appraoch to fixing htte larger problems that exists.

    Does Nick really think that fixing the manners is going to get us all back on a good path?

  • ||

    Epi:

    I heard 'bird law' in the US is really complex and doesn't make much sense.

  • ||

    Gabe,

    Well said. The worst thing you can do is tell a already disaffected and pissed off public that they can't express their anger.

  • Solanum||

    Really. More congresscritters getting caned to within an inch of their lives would be a good, just, and hilarious thing.

    No shit. I might actually tune into C-Span if there were regular crippling/fatal beatdowns on the floor. Who needs term limits?

  • ||

    I lived in San Francisco at this time. This was NOT a time of great gay bashing and violent talk against gays. That is why the incident was so shocking. Pelosi is rewriting history to fit her own objectives. I believe Stalin is her mentor.

  • ||

    Mango, I challenge you to a duel.

  • ||

    Magnolia,

    Stop point out those "facts" that don't fit the narrative. All political violence is committed by the right wing. Got it? That is the narative even when the violence is committed by derranged small time Democratic politicians.

  • ||

    Why, again, does calling a liar a liar not make sense?

  • ||

    Epi, Accepted... Once a duel is accepted you have to do it, it's the law. You know that.

  • ||

    I cannot imagine a sight which would have pleased me more than a sweating, disheveled, blubbering Ted Kennedy fleeing down the steps of the Capitol, pursued by an irate constituent wielding a whippy, lightweight walkingstick.

  • ||

    Uhh...aren't you really busy? Like, I...uh...you are probably too busy to duel. We should just realize that you've learned a lesson here, I've learned a lesson...

  • T||

    No shit. I might actually tune into C-Span if there were regular crippling/fatal beatdowns on the floor. Who needs term limits?

    I'd watch more if there was more heckling and catcalls.

  • ed||

    "I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm
    in some of the statements that are made."


    Are you kidding me? Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel would like nothing better than for some unbalanced whacko with ties to the far right to take a shot at the president. It would be the propaganda opportunity of a lifetime.

  • alan||

    Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) did deserve to be reprimanded for his pathetic and puerile outburst during President Obama's speech.

    Let's say you are right in this instance that Obama's speech did not rise to the level of inciting a heated and immediate response. I've only watched clips of the few seconds when the shout occurred. I caught the tail end of the speech and found out about the 'you lie' later in the evening, so I can't really be judicious here. However, just take the conventional wisdom as a given for my question.

    How far does a guest who is given an audience of both houses have to go in insulting the congressmen, lying about their motives, lying in the supportive rhetorical content of the speech as well, and doing it all for his political advantage before he is rightfully asked to immediately leave, and don't let the door slam on his sanctimonious ass on the way out? In the case of the President, is it never? Well then, if that be the case than we need to think long and hard about what this is that we claim to be a Republic.

  • Alexander Hamilton||

    You've got nothing to worry about, Epi. You'll do just fine.

  • ||

    Skeletor fears for the peace of Eternia. Touching.

    C-rag Pelosi certainly wasn't complaining about this when Bush was facing unprecedented global vitriol, but now that anger is directed at her and hers, suddenly mama bear fears for the peace of the country? Get off it, you proselytizing whore.

    We need to get more disrespectful, and more out of line, until they realize that it is they who move us ever closer to refreshing a certain metaphorical tree.

    I think it's time we made that silly broad cry like a little baby.

  • ||

    Mango--Ignore Epi. He's just looking for an excuse for Morena Baccarin to give him sword fighting lessons.

    It's time to give up the dream, Ep.

  • ||

    maybe Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) should have gotten in trouble for claiming on the House floor that George W. Bush and the Republicans were sending kids to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.

    Wow! Maybe? This is somehow comparable to alleging that the president lied? Comparing these two statements/incidents is disturbing to me. The fact that you agree that they "were sending kids to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement"", even on some level, shows me that you haven't a clue about the character of our last president.

    To allege that the President would be amused by the deaths of our soldiers, even for shock value, is disgusting, unless there is abundant evidence of it, in which case removal from office, imprisonment, and death, not outbursts would be appropriate.

  • ||

    That is a worthy dream, especially if done in the same outfit.

  • ||

    Maybe you guys should have watched the Always Sunny premiere.

  • Sal Paradise||

    "As Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) put it, regardless of any context, "I believe that it's important to maintain the rules of decorum of the House and I supported its passage."

    We'll agree to disagree. I'd prefer if these cretins yelled, screamed, and bickered at each other like they do in the British Parliament. If they are going to steal my money and my liberties, I should at least be entertained.

  • ||

    The reading about the CIA I learned that the intelligence community is happy to build relationships with people in positions of influence in key dissident political groups.

    Even if the compromised dissidents still think they are working against "the man". The compromised dissidents can help control the energy of their followers, appease their followers with shallow displays of disrespect while directing their energy away from the really important issues that the intelligence community is more protective of.

    While I think Nick is a great guy, his behavior here (appealing to us to support ideals of decorum and good manners above the ideals of truth and disruption of the enemy)...is behavior that leads some people at times to think he is useful idiot for our enemy(the state).

  • Mad Max||

    'the most recent act of actual overt political violence may be an anti-abortion activist who was gunned down (the killer's motivation is not clear).' - linking to a Detroit News article by Laura Berman.

    Berman's article certainly gives a possible motive for the killer - to be sure, it's a police claim which hasn't yet been tested in court (for that matter, the killer's identity hasn't officially been established in court, either - presumption of innocence and all). But it is a claim which has been prominent in the media, and it should certainly receive some acknowledgement.

    From Berman's article:

    'But the angry man who [allegedly] gunned [Jim Pouillon] down Friday, and then killed gravel company owner Mike Fuoss, doesn't appear to have been on a political mission. Police told Detroit News reporters that Harlan James Drake, the self-confessed shooter, didn't have strong feelings about abortion one way or the other.

    '"Mr. Drake did not believe children should view the graphic material on the signs Mr. Pouillon carried," Owosso Police Lt. Michael Compeau told The News.

    'Pouillon waved signs -- gory and clinical depictions of mutilated fetuses -- chosen to make viewers blanch in horror. His goal was to irritate people, especially if these were frightened, desperate women who were determined to end pregnancies.'

    That last paragraph was Berman's editorial voice, by the way. So it seems that Berman shares Drake's alleged dislike of the victim's prolife signs. In fact, Berman's article is full of the kind of rhetoric against prolife demonstrators which has been spewing from pro-aborts for years: 'secure in the knowledge that he was doing God's work. . . . undeterred by the disapproval or discomfort of others already living . . . He was a man obsessed. . . . [Pouillon's killer was] carrying the weight of his own peculiar obsessions.' Moral equivalence, anyone?

    At least Berman didn't compare certain prolifers (including prolife demonstrators who practice nonviolent civil disobedience in the Martin Luther King mode) to the Taliban, or ban prolife demonstrators from holding up 'graphic' signs like some cops did recently.

    Under Pelosi's way of thinking, perhaps the harsh rhetoric against prolife demonstrators, especially demonstrators with 'graphic' signs, contributes to the kind of climate in which a whacked-out dude feels free to kill a prolife demonstrator? ( I'm simply applying Pelosi's ideas, not endorsing them.)

    But, by all means, cling to the distinction between opposing someone's graphic prolife signs and opposing the prolife cause itself. I'm sure that James Earl Ray had no problem with civil, respectful Negroes asking for a fair shake - it was Martin Luther King's uppity behavior which was the problem. (The boundaries of civil behavior are set by the assassin, of course - who could be more civil than an assassin?).

  • Vampire Bill||

    "you have libeled my State and slandered a relative who is aged and absent, and I am come to punish you for it."



    And ah will have need of your blood, suh.

  • ACORN = Enron||

    No you idiots, it's not "Liar", but rather "Fire" that you're not supposed to shout in a crowded theater. Fire!

    I believe there has been a misunderstanding.

  • ACORN = Enron||

    "I cannot imagine a sight which would have pleased me more than a sweating, disheveled, blubbering Ted Kennedy fleeing down the steps of the Capitol, pursued by an irate constituent wielding a whippy, lightweight walkingstick."

    He's sucking cocks in hell now. That's even better.

  • ||

    Episiarch,

    Why watch the show? I can read the entire script here at Hit & Run.

    I have a funny for you.

  • ||

    "While I think Nick is a great guy, his behavior here (appealing to us to support ideals of decorum and good manners above the ideals of truth and disruption of the enemy)...is behavior that leads some people at times to think he is useful idiot for our enemy(the state)."

    If he had written a similiar post when Bush was in power and people interrupted him, Nick might have some credibility on this. As it is, this post might as well read, "I am Nick. I am smart and you guys are stupid. So you will beleive anything I say no matter how rediculous."

  • ACORN = Enron||

    @ aelhues | September 18, 2009, 12:40pm | #

    Yup, that's exactly what I thought when I read that line.

  • ||

    Maybe you guys should have watched the Always Sunny premiere.

    It's back on? I'll have to check the DVR...I still have a season of "Rescue Me" to catch up on.

  • ACORN = Enron||

    "'Pouillon waved signs -- gory and clinical depictions of mutilated fetuses -- chosen to make viewers blanch in horror."

    Abortion pictures bad.

    Flag draped coffin pictures good.

  • ||

    "'Pouillon waved signs -- gory and clinical depictions of mutilated fetuses -- chosen to make viewers blanch in horror."

    Abortion pictures bad.

    Flag draped coffin pictures good."

    Photo of a Marine actually dying, better.

  • ACORN = Enron||

    @ John

    Sweet! Thanks!

  • ||

    Photo of an enemy sniper shooting a US soldier = best?

  • alan||

    The reading about the CIA I learned that the intelligence community is happy to build relationships with people in positions of influence in key dissident political groups.

    Even if the compromised dissidents still think they are working against "the man". The compromised dissidents can help control the energy of their followers, appease their followers with shallow displays of disrespect while directing their energy away from the really important issues that the intelligence community is more protective of.


    I wonder if they now refer to this as 'the Gingrich'?

    Agent Smith
    'The Hondurans are mad a hell at the White House.'
    Agent Jones
    'Shouldn't they be? It was a stupid response.'
    Agent Smith
    'Well, yeah, but what are we going to do about it.'
    Agent Jones
    'We've got a few congress critters gingriched down there, right?'

  • JB||

    Pelosi has been a giant setback for women.

    She has probably done more to decrease respect for women than Octomom and Britney put together.

  • ||

    "Pelosi has been a giant setback for women."

    But you have to admit that Skeletor really has done a good job changing his public image.

  • Mad Max||

    And I notice that nobody bothered to assassinate the animal-rights crowd at my college, despite their fairly gory photos, drawings and videos, including a gross drawing in a banner over the cafeteria.

  • ||

    She has probably done more to decrease respect for women than Octomom

    For God's sake, it's a vagina, not a clown car!

  • Mad Max||

    'More congresscritters getting caned to within an inch of their lives would be a good, just, and hilarious thing.'

    This is in reference to the 1856 incident when Congressman Preston Brooks assaulted Senator Sumner of Massachusetts.

    The assault was in retaliation for a speech by Sumner against the Southern lobby's policy of introducing slavery in the the then federal territory of Kansas. Sumner's speech contained criticisms of slavery and of a pro-slavery politician who was related to Brooks.

    So perhaps Brooks 'didn't have stong feelings about slavery one way or another,' but simply objected to the vividness of Sumner's rhetoric.

  • Paul||

    Harvey Milk

    Who was a major, and I mean major supporter of Jim Jones and his crackpot Jonestown cult.

  • zoltan||

    "Pelosi has been a giant setback for women."

    But you have to admit that Skeletor really has done a good job changing his public image.


    I thought you were going to say Skeltor really has done a good job changing women's public image. Which I would politely disagreed with you.

  • zoltan||

    By Skeltor, I meant Skeletor. This is what happens when you are drunk at 1:45 Central in the afternoon.

  • ||

    "This is what happens when you are drunk at 1:45 Central in the afternoon."

    A greatful nation salutes you, sir.

  • T||

    So perhaps Brooks 'didn't have stong feelings about slavery one way or another,' but simply objected to the vividness of Sumner's rhetoric.

    The Confederate thread is a few further up the page, Max. Try there.

  • Tony||

    Extreme violence IN THIS country is a very real possibility if the governemnt keeps moving in the direction it has been going the last 10 years.



    You pull the trigger, you're responsible. You don't get to blame some vague conception that the government is changing against your wishes. The government is legitimate and it's doing what it was elected to do. Just because right-wing demagogues shout at you every day to boost their ratings thereby skewing you toward radicalism doesn't give you an excuse to commit violence. I'm tired of the not-so-veiled threats even from some of the cocks on this site. If you survived the last 8 years without bloody revolution I think you can last a bit longer.

  • Paul||

    You don't get to blame some vague conception that the government is changing against your wishes.

    Tony, people are getting angry because the government isn't changing.

  • ||

    Pelosi has been a giant setback for women.

    What are you talking about? Pelosi's a drag queen.

    -jcr

  • ||

    The government is legitimate and it's doing what it was elected to do.

    The actions of the federal government are only legitimate when limited to the powers delegated to it in the constitution. Any activities beyond the enumerated powers is a usurpation, and is illegitimate.

    -jcr

  • ||

    The government is legitimate and it's doing what it was elected to do.

    Tony--For your reading and educational pleasure.

    Let us know when you find these powers you speak of enumerated.

  • Tony||

    If a law is unconstitutional that's what the court is there for. Not some disgruntled jackass with an 8th grade reading level.

  • Paul||

    Not some disgruntled jackass with an 8th grade reading level.

    If a law is unconstitutional that's what the court is there for. Right, like the WTO protesters.

    Oh, breaking windows and throwing molotov cocktails while yelling "down with capitalism" is more mature than going to a rally where nothing violent happened and yelling "down with socialism". It's all so clear, now.

  • Paul||

    Little trip down memory lane:

    Once more, the mainstream media coverage in the US about such a major event was very much lacking. It was pretty much corporate led and therefore concentrating on the sensationalism of the violent aspects of the protests, without really looking at the real issues (such as the corporate domination with lack of accountability).



    Yeah, how unfair the media was to the left. Concentrating on [RACISM!] the violent aspects of the protests (of course noting that at the WTO protests there actually were violent aspects to it). If only they'd concentrate on the issues, like global capitalism!

    So I guess the left's way of getting back is to concentrate on the [potentially] violent aspects and chimeric racism of the dissent instead of the issues. Way to elevate!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Nancy WANTS violence. She wants some unhinged right-winger (or one of her side, operating under false-flag pretenses) to start some violence so her party can be the one to impose martial law first.

    No, I'm not kidding.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    "The government is legitimate and it's doing what it was elected to do."

    Does it have to do so much, though? Does it have to do everything it's doing now?

    We say not just no, but hell no. You, of course, want more, because you and the far-right see American grown-up adults as nothing but drooling children who must be coddled and spoon-fed, and told how to wipe their asses.

    A lot of people didn't want McCain to be the national father-figure, either, so don't even start that shit again.

  • Democrats||

    Why won't you stupid, inbred, racist cocksuckers just shut the fuck up and accept and love and obey us? What the hell is wrong with you people?

    We won, we're poor sports when it comes to winning OR losing, true, but we still won and it's OUR goddamn turn to do what Bush did - act like bullies with a bottomless wallet.

    Now, bend over and take your socialist medicine, you ungrateful pricks.

  • Democrats, continued||

    And another thing... stop using hateful language about us and our president, you incestuous Klan-robe-wearing right-of-center pig fuckers.

  • Democrats, too||

    Because it's okay if WE abuse power, use hate speech, and spend money like Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy ordering waitress sandwiches, that's why.

    You brainless David Duke-worshiping capitalist fucks had better start straightening up your act, or we're gonna go all Kent State on your asses.

  • Republicans||

    You just wait until WE regain power... we'll show you godless commie bastards how to REALLY abuse it.

  • ||

    I must have misheard Joe Wilson. I thought he said, "You lie." Apparently, everybody else heard, "You nigger." I can't figure out how I missed that.

    The rules for staying politically correct are so complicated these days. I've managed to figure out that calling a white president Hitler is acceptable political discourse, but calling a black president a liar is racism... even when the black president is lying.

    By the way, there have been two "gun-toting" incidents, the first in New Hampshire before the second in Phoenix. But all the violence that occurred at these rallies has been committed by thug supporters of Obama, most notably SEIU members.

  • Tony Bowie from Chicago||

    You're a racist, woman-hating capitalist pig, Henry. We Have Spoken.

  • www.MooOn.borg||

    We are the Collective. Resistance is futile. Your rights and folding money will now serve us.

  • Loony Left||

    Yeah! Fuck individuality! Fuck big corporations! Fuck capitalism!

    Oh, wait... bail out GM and Chrysler, so our union buddies can still make thirty bucks an hour installing valve-stem caps.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) did deserve to be reprimanded for his pathetic and puerile outburst during President Obama's speech.



    Because the only one who gets to call his opponents liars is the president. How authoritarian of you.

    Does the fact that Wilson was right help him out at all?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    No, Jim, remember:

    "It's okay when WE do it."

    Both sides play that stupid game; now it's the R's turn to poke the left in the ribs. In a few years or so, the worm will turn and Dems will demand the right to call the president a liar.

  • ||

    Wilson's outburst has a long history in the legestlatve bodies we copied from the Brits. In the House of Commons there is a lot of name calling and such going on as part of the process.
    My idea to fix our country is to have both of our houses constrained to follow "Robert's Rules of Order". This would eliminate those funny riders that get tacked onto bills. "Mr. Chairman, I object, the proposed admendement does not directly pertain to the main motion."
    This would stop a lot of the B.S. that now goes on with people voting for one thing that turns out to be another.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement