Fox News Reporter Tells Republicans to Hit Obama Voters in the Face

1. 80

   Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years ago

   It's been a couple of days now. Fox News Reporter Andrea Tantaros said that if you see a person who voted for Obama, hit 'em in the face. Why is there no discussion of this? Is inciting to violence the new hate message from Fox? Go figure.....
   http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-andrea- … -the-face/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think anyone would take that literally.
      For one thing, conservatives are known for being nonviolent in both action and verbalization.   I think Tantaros is just fed up like most conservatives, tired of being beaten down both verbally and physically and politically, and just misspoke,  using the sentence figuratively.
      But even if she did mean it literally,  it's no worse than most of the crap that has come outta Obama's mouth and his minions'.     Things like reference to bloodbaths and other things I can't remember right now (but will find if need be).
      To this day, I can't stand that liberal woman (can't remember her name right now;  but I used to like her acting skill and comedic skills),  who said repeatedly that she hoped Rush Limbaugh got kidney failure.
      
      It's kinda like how old-fashioned women used to literally smack the face of some man who "blackguarded" them.    That's what the men deserved.    These days, I guess the woman would be charged with assault, even when it's the man who made unwelcome advances toward them.    Sometimes civil rights are taken way outta hand.
      
      And who knows----maybe she will apologize just in case anyone jumped to the wrong conclusion at what she said.   Conservatives are notoriously honest that way,  even though it usually doesn't stop the mocking and harrassment toward them (the Left is notoriously judgemental and unforgiving).
      
      
      Conservatives are generally too hard on their own group.    When Sarah Palin decided to not keep her position as Governor,  she was cut down by the Left and by some on the Right.
      But it's funny.........I have yet to hear the media cut down Hillary Clinton for leaving her job as Secretary of State.    When in fact she surely left to dodge responsibilitly for Benghazi.    But oh no!    She's being touted by the Left as a good Candidate for President!   And even as a valid Candidate by some on the Right!    Amazing.    People are so ignorant and foolish sometimes....

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Interesting ideas. I really don't care why Hillary resigned. Kerry is still toeing the idiotic line about peace in Palestine. Ain't happening.
         
         By the way, the Fox News Reporter Andrea Tantaros was quite serious and in somewhat of a rage when she said you should hit Obama voters in the face. I know of no equivalent that comes to mind. It's such a contrast to Obama who cannot seem to get outraged about anything. It guess she's trying to out-do Bill O'Reilly, who would be impossible to upstage.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah Bill the Kid, Obama supporters are known for their rational natures and....BHA HA HA HA AH Sorry I couldn't even do it as a joke. Here's a link  for you on peaceful Obama supporters threatening to riot and murder folks ;-)

            replyreport
      2. 73

         Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Ms. Durham.
         
         Here is some interesting reading about violence and conservatives…
         
         On the June 13, 2011, edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck. Mr. Beck Asks, "Why Would You Get A Gun?" And Then Points To Picture Of Obama. {1}
         
         From the Baltimore Sun ~
         “Conservatives' rhetoric more violent by far”
         “when it comes to veiled and not-so-veiled calls for violence, there is a glaring and undeniable asymmetry: It is almost always conservatives who incite, condone and even engage in violence as a "legitimate" means of political expression.”
         
         •On Oct. 9, 2009, House candidate Robert Lowry of Florida held an event at a Broward County gun range during which he fired at a series of symbolic political targets, including a silhouette with his opponent Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's initials on it.
         •On Jan. 10, 2010, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle spoke of the need for "Second Amendment remedies" to congressional policies, and specifically called for "taking out" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
         •On May 10, 2010, House candidate Brad Goehring from California's 11th District wrote on his Facebook page: "If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to 'thin' the herd."
         •Jesse Kelly, the Republican who ran against Ms. Giffords last cycle, held an event on June 12, 2010, advertised locally as follows: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 With Jesse Kelly."
         •On Oct. 21, 2010, Dallas pastor and House candidate Stephen Broden said the violent overthrow of the U.S. government in 2010 should not be "the first option," but citizens ought to use "any means necessary" and that violence should remain an option "on the table." {2}
         
         In February 2011 at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Mr. Hagerstrom explained in a panel discussion the plan to “take the unions out at the knees” in Michigan.
         
         “Study Confirms Conservative Rhetoric Promotes Hate” {3}
         
         I suppose, Ms. Durham, these conservatives are not REAL conservatives!
         
         {1} [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/13/11]
         {2} http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-0 … rron-angle
         {3} http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/s … 20rhetoric

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hmm.
            Well, I'm pretty sure there are many more instances from the liberals, even if some of their rhetoric is more heavily veiled.
            Major case in point-------even TALKING about abortion being okay is HUGE violence speech!   Must I point out the times that that's been done?   Heck, this entire forum probably couldn't contain all those instances.   Not to mention the lesser instances of verbal violence and literal violence that HAS come from the Leftist groups!
            
            And no I don't know whether all those people you mentioned are "real" conservatives or not,  so really neither I nor you can fully speak to that.
            
            Next point is this----I never said that conservatives don't have a breaking point.   Because usually they (we) do.   And rightly so, really.    What do you expect a conservative to do when people invade our government with the clearly spoken intent to change all that is traditional and dear and morally right?     For 5+ years now we've tried to do things the best, nicest, way possible,  even appealing to the integrity and human dignity that we assumed those leaders had/have.   But they've shown no shame, no remorse, no intention to do right;  only to keep on destroying all that is good in this Country.    So.........historically, even, when people are so oppressed and mocked and tyrannized, and ordinary channels don't provide any relief, they will end up choosing the only option left.   But hey, who am I to predict that America as a whole will actually stop worshipping the fools that are in charge of our government and kick their sorry rears out?    Only an eternal optimist would believe that.    But hey, I've always called myself that.   I have no idea how many people have the same resolve to hope for the corruption to be handed over to legal justice.   But I will say this-----conservatives have let a lot of things slide........even the horrid abortion law..........but this Administration has its hand in every aspect of our lives (everyone's life, liberal or  conservative),  and it's fiddling where it has no business.    By the way, by legal justice, I mean legal justice.   And when a tyrannical government won't let its people go, and those people aren't gonna give up their Country to them, then that government is guilty of treason.  I include the Supreme Court in that also.  Only fools or wicked people would legally condone the killing of babies while claiming ignorance of the fact the child IS a child.   The Supreme Court has at least a 40-year history of perpetuating the holocaust upon America.   And when a President comes on the scene and sides with that foolishness, it only makes it worse, and makes it urgent that America clean up its house, and quickly.  What's the punishment for treason these days?   At the very least, resignation from power.    Who wouldn't say that?   Only those who like the tyranny, who have some kind of ambitious stake in it, or who are otherwise a part of it.
            
            It is not my Country that's broken.   It's the leaders who are broken, rotten.   We don't have a broken Constitution; we have ignorant or wicked people who hold the power over that document and are misusing it.   
            
            And even if a majority of the citizens of America turn Left,  it's not the fault of the Constitution nor of America as a whole;  it's the fault of those people.   They need to resign.   And if they won't, the power of law-making and leadership should be stripped from them.

            replyreport
         2. 50

            Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "Here is some interesting reading about violence and conservatives…"
            
            What violence?
            
            Violence=exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               
               Golly gee, Lie Detector, thank you but I already have a dictionery.  For your benefit, I re-word the sentence.
               
               Here is some interesting reading about conservatives espousing violence using the definition of violence provided for us by Lie Detector in his forum post http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/113201? … ost2411487
               

               replyreport
         3. 80

            Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Quilligrapherposted, maybe we can settle for calling these threats "bullying." Remember, that the many of the forums on Obamacare were shut down as being too dangerous for the Congressional Representatives to attend--Tea Party people were bringing guns.
            
            I planned to attend one in Portland, OR, but the Congressman wasn't allowed to attend. I drove by myself but didn't get out of my car when I saw the guns. That's one of the reasons Obamacare has such high negative numbers. Only the bullies were allowed to discuss it in some forums. Of course, there are other reasons, like the quarter billion the Koch Brothers and other Welfare Tax Exempt organizations spent on ads against it.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Thank you so very much for adding to the discussion. I am very sorry, Dr. Kidd, but I respectfully disagree with your characterization. You may consider carrying unconcealed weapons to a public political forum as bullying but in my view it is intimidation.
               
               When a candidate for the House of Representatives holds a rally at a gun range and fires live rounds at a silhouette bearing his opponent’s initials, he is portraying violence as a means of achieving a political objective. {1}
               
               Meanwhile, I hope you have a great evening, Doc, and me too.
               
               {1} http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-0 … rron-angle

               replyreport
2. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   SOP: Get outraged over X from "the other side". Ignore X from "your side".

   replyreport
3. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   A little strange.  I kind of sort of understand political violence if you are trying to make a point (like environmental groups sometimes do), but this has no place.

   replyreport
   1. 50

      Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You understand political violence?
      
      You are shining example of whats wrong.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The American Revolution was political violence, as was World War 2.

         replyreport
         1. 50

            Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for clearing that up.

            replyreport
4. 78

   Levellandmikeposted 11 years ago

   I saw it live...thought it was kinda funny.
   It was a damn joke, people. Get the hell over it.
   If it had been a Democrat saying that about Republicans, this thread wouldn't be here.
   Kinda reminds me of one of Hillary Clinton's first speeches after becoming First Lady.
   She had this line: "Honestly, I can't understand how someone can call himself a Conservative and still be a Christian."
   Had Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush said that concerning Liberals, you people would STILL be screaming bloody murder
   Instead, Katy Couric on The Today Show tittered like a schoolgirl over "the First Lady's wit and wisdom."
   I know...I was watching.
   This doesn't amount to a hill of beans, quit trying to make something out of it.

   replyreport
5. 59

   nicthusposted 11 years ago

   Tantaros has a point. It would appear, however, that some who subscribe to a "politically correct" ideology, have no sense of humor.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I can't support Andrea's comment and besides, their faces ought to be plenty red already.

      replyreport
6. 63

   Zelkiiroposted 11 years ago

   ITT: Conservatives justify violence when they get to be the ones dealing it.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This is my same concern: violence. I notice that many of the comments just push the idea of violence aside, just saying it was humor. But let me say, if someone said to you, "I'm going to punch you in the face if you tell me you voted for Romney", wouldn't it put you on edge--especially if the person was giggling when he or she said it? Just sayin'....it's something to think about.

      replyreport
7. 61

   zhazzardposted 11 years ago

   Well, Fox News is famous for being disgustingly right-wing...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      ....There's nothing disgusting about being Rightwing! 
      Unless it's to people who are Wrongwing of course.   LOLOL.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         zhazzardposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         No, there is not; however, it is a smidge disgusting when someone says that people -more specifically democrats- needed to be punched in the face for voting for Obama. In my opinion, Obama was the lesser of two evils when it came to this last election. Romney is a tyrant who was born with a silver spoon up his... unmentionables would cut your throat to make a buck. I guess we're getting the shaft either way, but at least this way kids can still go to college on a FAFSA as opposed to "asking our parents". I don't know. I could go on for hours about all of the things wrong with Obama's policy 'n what not, just as I could about Romney's, but that wouldn't get me anywhere besides an upset stomach and a headache.
         
         Haha, but, I enjoyed your joke. It was funny.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            zhazzardposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            ....Romney is a tyrant who was born with a silver spoon up his... unmentionables WHO** would cut your throat to make a buck.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you.
            But I wasn't joking.
            There has always been, is, and always will be, "right" and "wrong".   There's a reason the Right in this Country is called the Right.  It's because it's right.  And there is no such thing as the "too far Right", because by the time something or someone has gotten so far as to deserve that label, they've already turned Left, so they are no longer Right at all.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               You said it, Ms. Durham, therefore you are both Right and right at the same time. Am I the only reader to see a flaw in this thinking?
               
               A false premise…
               “There has always been, is, and always will be, "right" and "wrong.” The Right in this country is called the right…because it’s right.”
               
               Results in a false conclusion…
               To be right is not to be wrong. Therefore the Right is always right and never wrong.
               
               The political Right determines what and who is right. Anyone who disagrees with the Right is therefore wrong. The Right is never wrong and everyone else is always wrong. Ms. Durham is always right because she is on the Right. Anyone not on the Right must be wrong. Ad infinitum.
               
               Now who could possible improve on such wisdom?
               

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  This reminds me of philosophical debates about the basis of moral judgments. 
                  
                  What makes a moral injunction binding?  Well, doing wrong is...wrong.  Well, why is an action wrong?  IT JUST IS.
                  
                  That's the response I get most of the time from non-philosophers.  It's quite scary really, because if the people who claim an action is wrong "just cause it is" were to be raised in a different environment, their moral judgments would then subsequently be a product of that different environment.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Wrong.
                     At least, their morality wouldn't necessarily be a result of their environment.
                     People have a thing called a conscience.   Most people do anyway.   Many people choose to ignore their consciences, however, I'll definitely give ya that.
                     
                     Children who've been abused, raped, molested, etc.,  from even very young ages have been known to fight against that abuse, whether subconsciously or consciously.   So.......they know what's being done is wrong,  even if they can't do anything about it.    And the person committing the abuse surely knows it's wrong, even if they were abused themselves as children.
                     And you can raise a whole family of children the same way, same environment, and yet almost invariably, some will choose different paths and actions and even thoughts than the others will.
                     People know right from wrong in most cases, no matter what their environment has been or is.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        What do you mean by "wrong"?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           
                           
                           
                           
                           W R O N G.
                           As opposed to
                           R I G H T.
                           
                           There, I spelled it out s l o w l y,  'cause maybe the print here is unclear........?
                           
                           I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by not defining the word, since I'm sure you, like other humans,  already know what w r o n g means.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              No.  I don't know what it means.  What do you mean by "wrong"?  Without giving clarification of the term, I am left with terrible ambiguity.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 
                                 Not funny.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    I'm not trying to be funny.  I'm wondering what you ground your ethics in.

                                    replyreport
                        2. 73

                           Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           
                           Sooner, the lady has already made herself perfectly clear.
                           Brenda Durham wrote:
                           There has always been, is, and always will be, "right" and "wrong". There's a reason the Right in this Country is called the Right. It's because it's right.
                           
                           The corollary is simply…
                           What is not Right is not right therefore anything that is not Right is wrong.
                           
                           Very simple logic for some minds.
                           

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Haha.  I would venture to say she was being slightly sarcastic .
                              
                              Still no answer though!

                              replyreport