Let me state up front that I don't approve of violent rhetoric from any political persuasion. I didn't like Palin's map with the targets or the Dem's map will the bullseyes. BUT...the left has been extremely vocal about how the far right should tone down the rhetoric, and I agree. But when the left uses the same rhetoric, why is it applauded by Pelosi?
She has applauded the protests in WI, calling it democracy in action. She apparently has no problem with the protest signs that depict the governor not only in rifle sights, but also with a bullet through his head. He's also been depicted/described as Hitler, Mubarak, and Mussolini.
Do you liberals agree with Pelosi and think these signs are acceptable? I'm not asking whether you agree with the bil or not, or whether you agree with the protesters or their right to protest. I'm asking only about the violent rhetoric.
Reminds me of the old saying, "Do as I say, Not as I do!"
So if I actually watched the video, which I haven't, I'll see and hear Nancy Pelosi personally condoning such signs? Applauding the violent signs, Nancy Pelosi, right? That's what you're saying, or trying to say anyway, right? Nancy Pelosi -whom you seem to have a fascination with- saying she approves of violent rhetoric when it's used by dems?
Somehow I doubt it.
There has hardly been a word said about the violent rhetoric in the background, so obvious in actually just about every news clip I have seen. The Dems are said now to be BEHIND this protest, providing bodies and money for this protest. Yes, Pelosi is a hypocrite, is now and always has been, the only Democracy in action she wants to see is that which would put her back squarely in the public eye, Pelosi is only concerned with Pelosi.
Good topic of discussion, Habee, I wondered about the horrible signs I saw in the crowds myself given the Democratic rhetoric of late, and am glad to see you calling the violent inferences into question -- and calling Pelosi's primping preening ignorance in to question.
"Do you liberals agree with Pelosi and think these signs are acceptable?"
No, I do not approve of these signs. Did Pelosi specifically say she thought the signs were acceptable? You said "she has applauded the protests in WI, calling them democracy in action." That is not really the same thing, is it?
One can agree that lawful protests are a reflection of democracy in action without approving of the words and actions of the protestors. I support any group's right to protest, even when I find their message to be despicable.
I don't belive Pelosi called any Tea Party rally 'Democracy in Action' with a quaking and quivering smile to the camera and certainly did not refrain from slamming them as bad bad folks at every conceivable occasion to speak in front of the camera. Nazi's comes to mind, quite clearly. Pelosi is a Hypocrite of the first liberal order.
What kind of signs people carry in mass protests cannot be controlled. However media people and politicians scapegoating
for profit and power can cause fringe violence. See the history of Rwandan genocide.
To my mind, that undermines their argument.
Public employee entitlements are bankrupting cities and states across America. Is it fair to the employees to renege on the promise of retirement benefits made to them when they were hired? No. It sucks.
Is it fair to require public employees to pay a higher percentage of their health care premiums/OOP costs, as the private sector has been forced to do?
Yes, it's fair. But it also sucks.
One would think that when enough states face the Sophie's Choice conundrum Wisconsin is now facing we might, as a country, warmly embrace a NATIONAL HEALTHCARE PLAN that provides AFFORDABLE CARE to all....
I hope you still feel that way when Social Security is insolvent - oops it is. Social Security will take in less in taxes this year than it pays out in benefits. That means it is going broke. I may be older than you which means I will get to take your money for my retirement and you won't get any - that satisfies me no end.
It is time to stop believing that we have the right to claim the property of others merely because the government is taking it on our behalf. The tune has been played, the dance with silly FDR inspired socialism is finished and it is time to pay the piper. I am fine if the first to pony up are the direct beneficiaries of state confiscation of personal, private property.
Your opinions about SS are those of a SMALL minority and a small-minded minority. Americans believe in Social Security - they want it and that's why the government will fix SS. But I don't ask anyone to believe my opinions. This is from the NY Times, supported by a scientific poll.
"It’s not surprising that Americans over age 65 are virtually unanimous in seeing Social Security as an important government program. As a group, they rely on it as the single greatest source of income in retirement.
But a poll commissioned by AARP to mark Social Security’s 75th anniversary (President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the transformational legislation on August 14, 1935) has found something even more interesting: young people line up solidly behind Social Security, too.
In a national phone survey of 1,200 adults by the GfK Roper consulting firm (margin of error: plus or minus 3 percent), 90 percent of those ages 18 to 29 deemed Social Security important. In fact, almost half of them agreed with the statement that it is “one of the very most important government programs,” an opinion held by nearly 80 percent of those over 65."
http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010 … americans/
I want to make sure I am interpreting your statement correctly.
Do you mean in general, you will get to take money from liberals who are younger than you? Or do you mean me, personally?
You have made some other comments here that lead me to believe the latter, but I don't want to assume, because you know what they say about that.
Rose, I am missing something. Are you suggesting that Pelosi saw and was specifically commenting on the video you linked to when she applauded the protesters? Because I don't know that the video is or is not a realistic cross-section of the protests. My gut says it's a carefully edited distortion of the most extreme.
Again, I did admit I may be missing something, but if Pelosi was applauding mass peaceful protests, that's guaranteed in the Constitution. To defend the right of assembly and the right to present your grievance to the government is fundamental.
So, you think Pelosi's minions did not see the videos from every network, that Pelosi herself was too busy primping and botoxing to see even one network video herself???
Doug says: "My gut says it's a carefully edited distortion of the most extreme."
My oh my, that is for certain what the liberal media did with a fine tooth in regard to any Tea Party gathering, and it was a fine tooth they had to utilize and distort, while Wisconsin..........the foul signs were everywhere!!!!!!!!!!! ROFL
by Stump Parrish6 years ago
After Tucson, will media tone it down? By Roland S. Martin, CNN Political Contributorhttp://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/15/m … Stories%29One paragraph in this report caught my eye.//If we are to embrace the...
by Sooner283 years ago
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … d-what-yo/You get more than you paid in, yet there is no outrage over this. I don't see any 65+ conservatives burning their Medicare cards, or returning their...
by Ralph Deeds3 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security...
by OLYHOOCH4 years ago
Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a "federal benefit payment"? I'll be part of the one percent, to forward this, our government gets away with way too much in all areas of our...
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
I would be interested to hear opposition to the stated "facts" in this video...Has anyone done an extensive research on the origins of Social Security?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4BjLrTq … r_embedded
by MikeNV6 years ago
The national debt — the amount of money the government owes its creditors — is about $12.5 trillion, or nearly $42,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. About $8 trillion has been borrowed in...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.