Submitted By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
The wrath from the right has been scortching ever since VP Joe Biden commented that certain freshman tea party congressmen were acting “like terrorists” in negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. There was equally no love lost when John McClain commented that the tea party freshman were acting as “deceivers” and their ideas were “bizarro.”
Now Tea Party freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) (No, not the one with the Maserati that goes 185) has produced his own video decrying the incivility and telling us that “Vice President Biden, I’m not a terrorist. Terrorists target and kill people.” You can watch the lament here.
While the language employed by the VP was quite over the top, and especially so given Biden’s challenge to introduce more civility into public discourse, our freshman congressman fails to see the irony of his words. No one suggests the Tea Partiers are calling for mass extinction of liberals or undocumented aliens, or gays or the poor. But what do they want?
Here’s Nevada GOP Senate Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle on the frustration of her comrades:
“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
Some Tea Party candidates are a tad less discrete in their call for violence. Here’s Texas Tea Party candidate Stephen Broden, “Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.”
Alaska Tea Party candidate Joe Miller found a lot to like in East Germany’s “checkpoint Charlie” system of stemming the tide of freedom-seekers “immigrating” to West Berlin during the Cold War:
“The first thing that has to be done is secure the border … East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow. Now, obviously, other things were involved. We have the capacity to, as a great nation, secure the border. If East Germany could, we could.”
And the Tea Party has a thing or two to say to liberals about the notion of any separation between church and state:
“Do you know, where does this phrase ‘separation of church and state’ come from? It was not in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. … The exact phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ came out of Adolph Hitler’s mouth, that’s where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they’re Nazis.” —Glen Urquhart, the Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for the Delaware House seat. You can even watch him here.
And then there’s that “witchy woman,” Delaware’s own Christine O’Donnell, who, when questioned about whether the Constitution calls for separation of church and state during a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School delightfully noted, “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” Ahems were heard around the world on that one.
New York Tea Party darling Carl Paladino had this suggestion for the poor:
“Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we’ll teach people how to earn their check. We’ll teach them personal hygiene … the personal things they don’t get when they come from dysfunctional homes. These (prisons) are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities. You have to teach them basic things — taking care of themselves, physical fitness. In their dysfunctional environment, they never learned these things.”
Then there’s the First Lady of the Tea Party, Michele Bachmann, sharing all the inside dope on what it really means to be gay (no husband jokes, please):
“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” — then Minn. state senator Michele Bachmann
There’s scores more and they deal with all manner of insensitivity to the poor, immigrants, the 45000 Americans who die every year from inadequate health care, and just about everyone else the right likes to pillory.
Now most of these quotes were from losers in their electoral races and maybe they represent only the most extreme dunces the Tea Party has produced, but that’s not really the point is it? The point is that while the far-out Right might be justly indignant for the rhetorical excesses of the Left, they can’t seem to find the words to decry the excesses of their own camp.
There’s a word for that.
Source: Huffington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
I think so Gene. It’s the thin skin coupled with the reflexive attack mode. He moderated himself quite well but took a dislike to BIL and Patty C who were orginal bloggers with me. We’ve lost both personas and it’s really too bad. Proof that corrosive effects live on for quite some time. I see no need to moderate kd’s comments let them stand as his calling card. Most folks can read it for what it is. If you skip back a couple of years you’ll see what I mean. Byron was a bright poster, but unable to contain his wrath. That was the giveaway. I’m sick of this guy and his bent for taking us away from meaningful discussion.
@geneh, spinwell has already posted my personal details so you are late to the game.
@mespo, as you have access to my information as a guest poster, you are either too lazy to confirm my identity is not Byron or are lying.
@mespo
You, unlike those of us without administrator access, have the ability to support your claim. You will not because you cannot.
@mespo
“both in the past when you usurped Patty C’s identity”
Your accusation is unsubstantiated. I have never posted as Patty C, nor have I ever posted a comment using someone else’s name.
mespo,
This is that Byron? How ironic most certainly.
@puzzling
The email address that you used to post your comment is associated with your avatar. Any one of the guest bloggers have access to that. They could post comments all over the web using your email address. It would appear as though you posted the comment. You might not find out about it for a long time.
Well, Byron, I appreciate your confirming my suspicions. Whether you want to admit it or not – you caught yourself. The only breach here was a breach of decorum by you — both in the past when you usurped Patty C’s identity hastening a blow up that we still suffer from and now with your obsessive attacks on Gene. While you might see yourself as the great foil, I find you more the great fool. I’ll have no further discourse with you because, as with the old Byron, I lost respect and interest in one who has no boundaries in his argument or his usurpation of another’s identity. It’s a pity really because in your rational moments you do have something to say.
That this discussion on integrity in posting arises on this particular thread about hypocrisy serves as the final irony. Adios Byron or kd or whatever mask you don tonight. By their fruit shall ye know them, indeed.
Byron Is Laughing,
Your delusional behavior is entirely up to you. However, if you wish to persist in it here, you can be moderated as well.
Quite true, sadly. I would hope that most seeking anonymity are not in the habit of using real or easily identifiable email addresses when posting anywhere on the Internet.
“And exactly who’s anonymity has been breached, Byron Is Laughing?”
That’s pretty funny buddha. Maybe you would like to post a comment at this website.
http://outingbuddha.wordpress.com/
All of the regulars are welcome to post comments at that site. Please post using the email address associated with the same avatar that you use on this site. Gene H. has just assured all of you that people with administrator access don’t have access to your private information. This way we can see how many of you believe him.
@mespo
“Let me just say that I have no access to your’s or anyone else’s information and have not been granted access to it by anyone.”
You log on to guest blog using JT’s credentials; do you not?
A number of guest bloggers have accidentally posted a comment as JT when they were logged on to post an article and forgot to log out.
Just because you don’t know what you’re looking at, that doesn’t mean that you weren’t provided access to the information. The breach took place nonetheless.
And exactly who’s anonymity has been breached, Byron Is Laughing?
No ones. Other than you and kderosa’s repeated attempts to breach the anonymity of the blogger Buddha Is Laughing. Pass whatever you like to whomever you like. The facts are that you don’t have the final say as to how this blog operates nor do any of your “select others”. The only person who has final say is JT.
@Gene H.
“This is JT’s blog. It is his decision and his alone to share editorial responsibilities. It is his ability and his alone to set the policies of this blog. He makes the rules, not you. If you have a problem with that, you are free to comment elsewhere.”
Thank you. It may be of benefit to have a person whom JT holds in such high esteem admit who is to be held ultimately responsible for the breach of anonymity.
A PDF copy of this thread has been printed and saved. It will be passed along to select others who can verify the date, time, and hash.
Byron Is Laughing,
What you fail to recognize is that none of this your decision.
kd:
Let me just say that I have no access to your’s or anyone else’s information and have not been granted access to it by anyone. Not sure I’d know how to get it even if it was provided. I just know Byron’s contrarian posts when I see ’em. Couple that with an impish desire to disrupt and there you have it. if I struck a chord with my surmise, great. If you’re not Byron, I suggest you read back a few years and see how remarkably similar your posts appear to his. I did — and they do.
“However, I’m about one step away from putting all of your future posts into the moderation queue to make sure they are on topic though and letting JT sort you out upon his return. Just try me.”
That’s exactly why JT should have known better than to provide a child (buddha) with such information and capabilities.
kderosa is pissed that JT would provide you with access to his information, and for good reason.
Byron Is Laughing,
This is JT’s blog. It is his decision and his alone to share editorial responsibilities. It is his ability and his alone to set the policies of this blog. He makes the rules, not you. If you have a problem with that, you are free to comment elsewhere.
correction: who considered their information to be restricted to JT’s eyes only.
@Former Federal LEO
“Professor Turley has stated that he ensures that he would not allow the release such information because there are lawyers, judges, and others who need to post herein anonymously. Therefore, you will be violating a basic tenet of this blawg in his absence. Breaking that trust might cause people far more important than I am to discontinue posting here.”
As you can see by Buddha/Gene’s post above, Jonathan has given the information that you, I, and the lawyers, judges, etc considered to be private to everyone of his guest bloggers.
Do you have a problem with that? Do you think Byron or bdaman would have posted here knowing that Jonathan would turn their information over to Buddha? Where’s Turley’s assurance of anonymity now?
If I was to receive an increase in spam, who do you think would be liable for that? I’m thinking Jonathan Turley.
Gene posted “Which none of the editors reveal publicly as is the policy of this blog in respecting anonymous posting.”
What about what is shared privately? Do you think I authorized Turley to provide my information to others?
More from Gene “The bottom line is the JT respects pete’s, FFLEO’s and your right to post anonymously just as he respects Buddha Is Laughing’s right to post anonymously.”
JT hasn’t respected jack. He gave access to my information to all of his guest bloggers. He gave them access to that information for all of those who have posted here over the years; including the lawyers and judges who considered there information to be restricted to JT’s eyes only.
kderosa,
Really? Then I suppose you won’t mind telling everyone your full name then, “k”. As to your continued delusions about my identity, I really don’t care other than you continue, as you are now, to disrupt threads with it. Again, if you have a problem with the policy of this blog or my selection as guest blogger, you take it up with Jonathan. However, I’m about one step away from putting all of your future posts into the moderation queue to make sure they are on topic though and letting JT sort you out upon his return. Just try me.