Town Square

Post a New Topic

How You Can Destroy Your Country with Democracy!

Original post made by Stacey on Apr 7, 2010

I was looking forward to the latest from American Thinker, but there's been a lull so I thought I'd offer my own copy/paste from a Subgenius. ;) It is a long read, but every patriotic American needs to be made aware of what is happening in this country! Shhhh, don't let the oligarchy see this. Someone might post the author's phone number.

Web Link

Comments (53)

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 7, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

OH SORRY! I FORGOT THAT COPY/PASTE!


Posted by Appalled, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2010 at 3:45 pm

I am appalled that Stacey would stoop so low.
I am NOT a teapartier (whatever that means) but I am outraged at the discrimination and blatent dual standards for this site.
jim 101's TeaParty notice is blocked for ONLY registered users, and
Middle-Class Mom's Middle-Class Americans thread is also blocked for ONLY registered.
It COULD be PW KNOWS the leftists that reply with such scum name-calling, BUT observing PW's bias, I'd guess that reason would be a LONG SHOT ! ! ! !. Based on those two current BLOCKS, HOW ON EARTH could there be any justification for the scum that Stacey's Link has here. I am truly surprised and appalled that Stacey is in that camp...but eventually I guess it always come out how low a person can go. The Link should have been REMOVED ! The link should BE REMOVED !


Posted by Appalled, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2010 at 3:46 pm

I am appalled that Stacey would stoop so low.
I am NOT a teapartier (whatever that means) but I am outraged at the discrimination and blatent dual standards for this site.
jim 101's TeaParty notice is blocked for ONLY registered users, and
Middle-Class Mom's Middle-Class Americans thread is also blocked for ONLY registered.
It COULD be PW KNOWS the leftists that reply with such scum name-calling, BUT observing PW's bias, I'd guess that reason would be a LONG SHOT ! ! ! !. Based on those two current BLOCKS, HOW ON EARTH could there be any justification for the scum that Stacey's Link has here. I am truly surprised and appalled that Stacey is in that camp...but eventually I guess it always come out how low a person can go. The Link should have been REMOVED ! The link should BE REMOVED !


Posted by Observer, observer thyself, a resident of Apperson Ridge
on Apr 10, 2010 at 4:24 pm

You can tell by the hysteria and typos that this is "observer" from the PPIE thread.

Remember what the nice doctor told you? Deeeeep breaths...that's right...it's all going to be ooookay...


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Apr 10, 2010 at 4:52 pm

"Appalled", before you got so all "right"eously fired up and shot off your . . . post . . . maybe you should have done a little investigating so you would know that it is the ORIGINATOR of the thread that sets the restriction to "registerd users only".

Just a thought . . . but maybe you should register so you too can participate on your favorite poster's threads . . .


Stacey, I thought the article was a funny read and pretty much right on point! Thanks for sharing!


Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Apr 10, 2010 at 5:06 pm

jim01 and Pleasanton Mom have established themselves as pesty shills for a particular ideology. Yes, the PW posts are a living record of exactly the extensive cut and paste postings that they have engaged in targeting a singular topic. This posting by Stacey, who actually posts across many different topics, does not rise to any level comparable to the activity of the former two. Freedom is speech is fine, but the PW has the right (and obligation) to limit abusive posters.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 10, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Yep, can't stoop much lower than posting satire.


Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of Country Fair
on Apr 10, 2010 at 6:07 pm

*Excellent* satire, at that.


Posted by T.R. Ollman, a resident of Amador Estates
on Apr 10, 2010 at 6:16 pm

"jim01 and Pleasanton Mom have established themselves as pesty shills for a particular ideology. Yes, the PW posts are a living record of exactly the extensive cut and paste postings that they have engaged in targeting a singular topic. This posting by Stacey, who actually posts across many different topics, does not rise to any level comparable to the activity of the former two. Freedom is speech is fine, but the PW has the right (and obligation) to limit abusive posters."

I second this. Every word of it!


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 10, 2010 at 11:25 pm

________________(name) and ________________(name) have established themselves as pesty shills for a particular ideology. Yes, the PW posts are a living record of exactly the extensive cut and paste postings that they have engaged in targeting a singular topic. This posting by ________________(name)who actually posts across many different topics, does not rise to any level comparable to the activity of the former two. Freedom of speech is fine, but the PW has the right (and obligation) to limit abusive posters.

you can fill in the blanks in different ways, but any way, you have one group attempting to silence another group.
So frank and troll, you are in favor of limiting free speech for those whose opinions you do not like?

I never see a conservative in here, or anywhere attempting to limit anothers free speech.

This is the same type of activity, manifested in many forms by the left, right now in our country, towards the right. Start with the Obama Administration with the fairness doctrine, or now we are getting net neutrality, the attempt at and end run around the legislative process.
Next we have Congress parading through a group of protesters on the day of the health care vote, attempting to provoke an ugly incident. When they failed, they made one up and blamed the Republicans and Tea Partiers, calling them racists and homophobes, just as we see here in this forum from the Obamabots posting here.

This is what the opposition has to do when they cannot have an open and honest debate. PMom posts various articles to provoke discussion and debate, and the left has no answer accept to name call and distort. It's all a distraction from the serious issues that we face in this country.


Posted by T.R. Ollman, a resident of Amador Estates
on Apr 11, 2010 at 8:40 am

"Congress parading through a group of protesters on the day of the health care vote, attempting to provoke an ugly incident. When they failed, they made one up and blamed the Republicans and Tea Partiers, calling them racists and homophobes, just as we see here in this forum from the Obamabots posting here. "

Wow. I've never agreed with your politics before, but it looks like you're going right over the edge into delusional here.

Let me guess: some extreme right-wing entertainer made these claims and you'll post a link to them as if they were fact.

The conspiracy theorizing and paranoia I've seen since Obama took office is staggering, and really seems to have brought out the fringe radicals.

Is there no way to bring you back from the edge? No solid facts you'll accept? No reputable, hard news you'll accept, or have you become too paranoid to accept anything outside of Fox?


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 11, 2010 at 9:50 am

extremeright-wingentertainerconspiracytheorizingparanoiafringeradicals.

Is there no way to bring you back from the edge? No solid facts you'll accept?

Thanks for the assist on proving my points troll. go ahead and show me these solid facts you are referring to on these alleged incidents on Capitol Hill.

Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for proof of these allegations, so if you have them, send them over to me and we can split the money.


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Apr 11, 2010 at 9:59 am

"Next we have Congress parading through a group of protesters on the day of the health care vote, attempting to provoke an ugly incident. When they failed, they made one up and blamed the Republicans and Tea Partiers, calling them racists and homophobes, just as we see here in this forum from the Obamabots posting here."

Really "jimf01"???

Congressional members had just as much right to be on the street as those protesting the upcoming health care vote, just as did the mob's favorite Republican Congressional members who were out there firing up the crowd. Unless . . .

Are you suggesting that anyone who didn't agree with the protestors had no right to be on the street at the same time? Perhaps you're suggesting that they should have been so intimidated by the mob that they should have snuck in the back door? Or maybe, that the Democratic Congressional members should have come in one-by-one so that the crowd, who had been encouraged all day by some of those great Republican Congressional "leaders" waving banners and making speeches, would have felt emboldened to have been even uglier than they were with their spitting and epitaphs . . . maybe it's just that you consider spitting to be cleansing, and don't consider the racial and sexual epitaphs name-calling, just more "truth" from the "right". Do you think the death threats that have been anonymously phoned in against Democrats in Congress are made up as well? How about the cut gas line at Rep. Perriello's brother's house? Maybe it's just that if you can't get a Democrat out of office by voting them out, you think that intimidation by threats to the member and their family are just as good, like with Sen. Stupak.

C'mon . . . really???


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 11, 2010 at 10:27 am

Really. Really, I want you to show me where the peaceful Tea Partiers in front of the Capitol were "spitting and epitaphs" (the word is epithets, but I will let it go.

Really. Really I will put up an extremist from the other end of the political spectrum for each one you have, so that is quite pointless, no longer will the Tea Partiers allow themselves to be portrayed as such.
Really, I want you to document where a Tea Partier didn't honor the rights of anyone from Congress to get out in public and join the debate in the streets.
Really, I want to know that the people who start the crash the Tea Party websites don't have the same motivation as a Congressman who makes up an accusation of racism.
Really troll, or rae, or whomever you will post as next?


Posted by Pleasenton Mom, a resident of Birdland
on Apr 11, 2010 at 11:04 am

Am I the only one who sees sense in what Jim says? Why do 99% of the posters here think he's wrong? He cited Andrew Breitbart--what more proof do you need?

I'd like to invite all of you to our Tea Party on the 15th! Come and meet us in person. I think you'll be surprised!

And you can come listen to impartial speakers spread the truth to literally hundreds of true Americans from all over California!

Don't like paying your taxes? Then come pay us as well!

See you there!


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Apr 11, 2010 at 11:35 am

"jimf01",
My name is Rae, and I post as Rae. Have I ever called you a "troll", or any other name in any of my posts? Just because I happen to disagree with you, "Pleasanton Mom" and all the other Tea Party Nation faithful, that you aren't the only "true American patriots" in this great nation does not mean that you get to call me a "troll", or imply that I, or any one else who disagrees with your particular political beliefs, is anything other than a "true American" or a "patriot".

As far as my questions go, I was serious. I saw the footage of the spitting on a network you may not frequent. But that aside, do you really think it's a stretch to believe that spitting and epithets (oh, and thank you so much for your condescending spelling correction) were hurled from the safety of the crowd? Just as they were via anonymous phone calls? How about the cut gas line?

If the Tea Party Nation doesn't want to be associated with the nastiness coming out of the right, then perhaps they should take a stronger stand against the violence. Instead of, for example, publishing home addresses of Democrats and inviting folks to "drop by" to express their anger, and then being surprised when someone does and cuts a gas line. Or carrying signs at rallies that say things like "today a Brown, tomorrow a browning" and then acting shocked when people show up at rallies wearing guns. Or using gun terms to target Democrats up for election . . . knowing that there is a radical fringe that is crazy enough to take terminology like that seriously.

Or maybe even not so radical . . . The Tea Party Nation seems to love having 2nd Amendment advocates attend and speak at their Tea Parties, and I'm betting lots of Tea Partiers attend the
2nd Amendment rally that is being held in Washington DC. You know the one . . . it's being held on April 19th, the same day McVey bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. I wonder if half-term Gov Palin is going??

So, yeah, REALLY???


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2010 at 11:45 am

Breitbart is hardly a paragon of truth, and your comment that Tea Party speakers are impartial isn't going to be believed by anyone.

P Mom, you have to know that by posting such non-sense as the idea that you will be jailed for refusing to have a microchip implanted in you, and consistently avoiding answering questions that are directed specifically to you unless you find a copy/paste degrades your already fragile credibility (if it ever existed).

Frank - I third your post.




Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 11, 2010 at 2:00 pm

I will give you the benefit of the doubt Rae, but you wouldn't go so far as to express that the main body of the Tea Party, who as PMom said, you would find are a fine bunch of folks, could be people who would never ever do such things such as disrespecting a Congressman in the horrible ways that they are accused of. Or would you?
As I said, there are extremists in any crowd, you would acknowledge that as well, would you?

2A supporters and Tea Partiers support our individual right and YOUR individual right to free speech and to keep and bear arms. Two more differences between me and you.

Showing up at a public rally wearing a gun or holding a pro 2A rally, if done in a lawful manner, is something I absolutely support, but you prolly coulda guessed that.

As for the date of the rally, I would not know whether that is more than a coincidence, but Pope Benedict was elected and the Boston Marathon are run on April 19th as well. The ATF assaulted the Koresh compound in Waco on April 19th.
Columbine and Hitler's birthday are April 20th, maybe the 2A supporters can get more smeared by postponing the rally one day.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 11, 2010 at 2:24 pm

Since you say you were serious, I will respond to this

"I saw the footage of the spitting on a network you may not frequent. But that aside, do you really think it's a stretch to believe that spitting and epithets (oh, and thank you so much for your condescending spelling correction) were hurled from the safety of the crowd?"

What you saw was what I saw, footage of what someone claims was spitting and/or epithets.
It takes more than just taking an accusers word for it to declare this as fact. That is the point. The entire scenario, the context in which it took place, why the protesters were there, why the Congressmen decided to walk through the crowd, all of the security and police that were present, all of the video cameras that were running, and we still only have a claim of spitting and racial epithets with no proof.
If that is enough for you to take that stretch you think I should accept, then we are going to continue to disagree. Evidence convicts. You and the mass media reporters presumed guilt based on accusations with no proof, because, hey, it's a bunch of racist teabaggers, of course they did it, because after all a Congressman would never ever lie about such a thing. Yes, the Congress is such a fine collection of honest people!


Posted by Kay, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Apr 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm

jimf01 -- To suggest that the insults hurled by the Tea Party protesters at Representatives André Carson of Indiana, Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri and John Lewis of Georgia did not happen is nothing short of ludicrous.

You suggest that it was staged. Why were they there, in front of the cameras? They were on their way to work! They were on the steps of the US Capitol, heading for an historic vote in the House!

The U.S. Capitol Police officers who were escorting the Congressmen, a courtesy offered to ALL members of Congress, witnessed the event, took a full report and the man who spat on Congressman Cleaver was arrested. How can that possibly imply to you that the altercation did not occur?

Web Link


Posted by Pleasanton Mom, a resident of Birdland
on Apr 11, 2010 at 9:49 pm

More lamestream lies! Don't you know that the New York Times is part of the Global Socialist Conspiracy?

FIGHT the Socialists who are trying to take over our country! Go to the Tea Party on the 15th and take a stand against those who would tax our hard-earned dollars by giving US your hard-earned dollars!


Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Apr 11, 2010 at 10:21 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

"New York Times is part of the Global Socialist Conspiracy?" I have heard that since the mid-sixties. Repeat a lie often enough and you start believing it and it becomes fact.

NY Times as liberal? Arizona Republic as conservative? Now, that I believe. NYT as part of the Global... yawn...


Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Apr 11, 2010 at 10:27 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

Pleasanton Mom... when will you become a member of the PW? Or, are you concerned about the Global Socialist Conspiracy and Obama socialist regime finding out where you live?

Anyway, on a serious note, my moniker was hijacked one time. I encourage you again, as jimf01 did some time back, to register your User name with the PW.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 12, 2010 at 10:47 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

Kay - Here is a follow-up story in which the Congressman refuses to say that he was spat upon, he states that he made no issue of it or made a report.
Web Link

What you state there is that "the man who spat on Congressman Cleaver was arrested". When the police make an arrest, there is an arrest report. Where is any documentation of the arrest, other than a NYT blog quoting a statement from Rep Cleavers office?

Here is a clip from another story trying to document what happened and what didn't happen
Web Link

Cleaver's office initially claimed that a protester was arrested after spitting on him, but that the congressman decided not to press charges.
However, U.S. Capitol Police said the protester was never arrested. He was only detained and put in handcuffs, then released.
Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, spokeswoman for the Capitol Police, told FoxNews.com the individual was released because Cleaver couldn't identify him.
"There were no elements of a crime, and the individual wasn't able to be positively identified," she said. "(Cleaver) was unable to positively identify."
Asked about the Capitol Police account, Petrovic said it's not that Cleaver couldn't identify the suspect. It's that he wouldn't identify the suspect, because the police would have been "obligated" to make an arrest, which he didn't want.

So Cleaver's own press person just refuted her own press release saying that the alleged spitter was arrested.

There are other articles from non Fox sites, but these two add the most detail.

Kay, you next ask and answer: Why were they there, in front of the cameras? They were on their way to work!

The reality of this is that the Congress typically use a network of private tunnels and subways under the streets to cross back and forth from the Capitol. The number of people accompanying them and carrying cameras make it plain that this was an organized confrontation of the protesters.

I did not imply or state that an altercation did not occur, clearly an altercation did occur. What actually happened, what was reported to have happened and what the Congressman is now willing to say happened appear to be three different things.

I wonder why there is such a shortage of follow-up stories on who the man is who allegedly spit on Rep Cleaver? Does it benefit the left that the story is that the incident happened and that it was a Tea Partier (was the guy was ever identified?)

Here is a follow-up column discussion in the Washington Post
Web Link

Post reporter Paul Kane was nearby and witnessed Carson's reaction. "It was real. It was raw. It was angry. It was emotional. And he wanted it documented," recalled Kane, who said U.S. Capitol Police prevented them from going outside. Carson later told the Associated Press the protesters had chanted the N-word "15 times."

Why, I have to ask, if the n-word was chanted 15 times, is there not a youtube video that picks that up? Or have I just not seen it?


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Apr 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm

"jimf01" said, "you wouldn't go so far as to express that the main body of the Tea Party, who as PMom said, you would find are a fine bunch of folks, could be people who would never ever do such things such as disrespecting a Congressman in the horrible ways that they are accused of"

LOL!! You're kidding, right? Is this the same "fine bunch of folks" whose postings have to occasionally be removed due to "offensive language" on this forum?

"jimf01" said, "there are extremists in any crowd, you would acknowledge that as well, would you?"

Of course! And a crowd, fired up by rhetoric designed to incite "action", will bring out the worst in some people - especially when they can hide in the anonymity of a crowd, or on a phone, or in the dark of night, or even on a forum. However, we can each only be responsible for our own actions, which is why, although I *will* exercise my right to free speech by expressing my opinions, I choose not to respond in kind to those of you who choose name-calling as your form of communication.

"jimf01" said, "2A supporters and Tea Partiers support our individual right and YOUR individual right to free speech and to keep and bear arms." "Showing up at a public rally wearing a gun or holding a pro 2A rally, if done in a lawful manner, is something I absolutely support, but you prolly coulda guessed that."

You're right . . . not a surprise! It's more than obvious looking at the attendees and the signs being carried at Tea Party Nation rallies that those "fine bunch of folks" absolutely support anyone's right to own and carry, for example, an assault weapon – a gun with the singular purpose of killing as many people in the shortest amount of time as possible. However, even conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia noted that there should be limits. In the majority opinion in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Web Link

"jimf01" said, "The ATF assaulted the Koresh compound in Waco on April 19th."

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that was the reason McVey chose April 19th for his assault. In fact, it's a real eye opener to read some of his views. Web Link Funny how much of the rhetoric he used and the opinions he expressed are exactly like those expressed by the "fine bunch of folks" from the Tea Party Nation faithful at their rallies and on this forum.

Food for thought . . . McVey would have fit right in at a Tea Party rally. When you flirt with violence by using gun terms and inflammatory rhetoric, or publish phone numbers and addresses of target individuals as a call to "action", knowing that there is a radical fringe who believe in violence, you bear some responsibility for the ensuing violence.

That said, getting back to what started this particular discussion, (ie your commentary on the Democratic Congressional members "parading through a group of protesters on the day of the health care vote, attempting to provoke an ugly incident"), the bottom line is that the Democratic Congressional members had just as much of a right to be on the street, with their lawful expression of free speech, as did the Tea Party Nation faithful.

Frankly, if all it takes to "provoke an ugly incident" is for a group of *elected* representatives to walk through a "fine bunch of folks" who happen to be in opposition to their views, you might want to rethink how "fine" that "bunch of folks" really are.

'nuff said, by me any way, on this particular subject.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 12, 2010 at 2:26 pm

Only problem is there was no ugly incident.

Oh yeah, a few more problems:
much of the rhetoric he used and the opinions he expressed are exactly like those expressed by the "fine bunch of folks" from the Tea Party Nation faithful at their rallies and on this forum

absolutely false statement and an outright smear

you flirt with violence by using gun terms and inflammatory rhetoric, or publish phone numbers and addresses of target individuals as a call to "action", knowing that there is a radical fringe who believe in violence, you bear some responsibility for the ensuing violence.

another false statement and an outright smear, and if you are referring to the use of the word reload by Sarah Palin, I mean, c'mon, get real.

This goes straight to my point, an unidentified person in a crowd of protesters allegedly spit on a Congressman, and here you are painting the entire group of Tea Partiers with false smears. Pathetic.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 12, 2010 at 2:30 pm

And readers see why Kay responds to something I say to Rae, who responds to something I say to Sharon, and on they go, so they can ignore the proof of the false claims in the previous persons posting and make more false claims.

Lies, distortions, false smears. It's all they got.


Posted by Nurse Shark, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Apr 12, 2010 at 3:41 pm

jimf01 claims that McVeigh's rhetoric being likened to current Tea Party rhetoric is "lies, distortions, false smears" and "absolutely false statement and an outright smear."

So let's do a little test: Are you ready to play "Tea Partier or Terrorist?" Is the following statement the sort of thing you'd hear at a tea party or from a terrorist?

"I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."


Posted by tax revolt 2, a resident of Country Fair
on Apr 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm

tax revolt 2 is a registered user.

Both! And from Democrats and Independents as well. The difference is the terrorist will actually want to engage in some violent action, whereas the non-terrorists are making astute observations and engaging in civil debate.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2010 at 4:37 pm

jmf01 - you didn't respond to anything I said. My post was directed at PM and as far as I know you don't share a personality.

Speaking of false claims - we've had to endure claims of "death panels" and "forced micro-chipping" (my all time favorite). When one gets debunked, another nonsensical claim is sure to follow.

I have yet to hear what safeguards were put in place previously for those who are uninsured. I think the current system needs work as well, but it is a massive improvement to the status quo. I'm looking forward to my brother having insurance coverage that doesn't deny 97% of the claims citing "pre-existing conditions" where none exist, and to families being served by the organization I work for being able to receive preventive care so they don't have to hit a crisis and impact the system of reimbursement with an unnecessarily expensive hospitalization.

If you've got something better, why the hold out?


Posted by Kay, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Apr 13, 2010 at 7:28 am

Jim --

As for who responds to whom on these boards, your voice is not the only one that counts here, pal. You approach each remark posted as if it is personal question posed to you by citizens of this 'burb who somehow need your wise tutelage and your sage words. You need a hobby.

As for Breitbart, a publicity hound with questionable motivations, it is now known that the video he claimed shows no "ugly act" was shot later in the day, after the confrontation. The 48-second video on his web site was shot as the group was leaving the Capitol -- at least one hour after Lewis and Carson walked to the Capitol, which is when they said the racial slurs were hurled at them by the Tea Party protesters.

Breitbart posted two columns on his Web site saying the lawmakers' claims were fabricated. Both contained a link to the YouTube video showing Lewis, Carson, other Congressional Black Caucus members and staffers leaving the Capitol. Some of the group were videotaping the booing crowd. This was after the "ugly act", not before.

When he was questioned about using the video on his Web site from the wrong time of the day as if it demonstrated proof of their lie, Breitbart stood by his claim that the lawmakers were lying, despite the fact that he had based that claim on faulty evidence.

So Jim, it does beg the question: Who is relying on "Lies, distortions, false smears" now? Seems to me, it is you.

Web Link


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 13, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Thanks for this new article, it does nothing but back up my previous assertions.
Lee Fang shot one of the videos, and says that he didn't hear the n-word, but he was SURE it was used.

Oh yeah, and he is with a liberal think tank (an oxymoron), and he was in a crowd of Tea Party protesters shooting video. Anyone ask him why he was there in the first place? Well, take a look at his author profile and guess at his motivation: Web Link
Here is more on Lee Fang's MO: Web Link
and more here: Web Link

Ah, yeah, one more note, Fang draws a paycheck from the Center for American Progress, who also employ Van Jones and is run by John Podesta who was the head of President Obama's transition team.

Whether or not Breitbart posted a video that was after the alleged spitting incident is beside the point when Breitbart offers $100,000 for anyone with any video of the spitting and epithets, showing that a Tea Partier did it.

Some unidentified person shouted at Rep Cleaver, may well have done a say it, don't spray it based on Cleaver's reaction on video, but since we have no ID, no arrest, and no other documentation forthcoming, even with $100K for the taking, we have a distortion and a false smear of the Tea Partiers, straight from the Congressional Black Caucus.
Next President Obama will come out saying the Capitol Police acted stupidly.


Posted by Kay, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Apr 13, 2010 at 3:06 pm

Jim -- I am not sure you read the whole article. "A fourth Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who is white, backed up his colleagues, telling the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times-News that he heard the slurs." That, from a CBC non-member.

BTW, I am perfectly fine with Fang's resume, and Breitbart must also be because he is the one who linked it on his own site.

I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. We seem to be looking at the same information and drawing wholly different conclusions. Good sparring with you.





Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Apr 13, 2010 at 3:15 pm

Geez! If a tree falls in the forest and no captures it on film, does that mean it didn't really fall?? If a Democratic Congressional member is spat upon or called names from the midst of a crowd and is unable to identify the specific person, does that mean it didn't happen? Or if they just choose not to press charges, does *that* mean it didn't happen?
----------
I said: "When you flirt with violence by using gun terms and inflammatory rhetoric, or publish phone numbers and addresses of target individuals as a call to "action", knowing that there is a radical fringe who believe in violence, you bear some responsibility for the ensuing violence."

"jimf01" replied: "another false statement and an outright smear, and if you are referring to the use of the word reload by Sarah Palin, I mean, c'mon, get real"

OK, here's a couple of real examples.

A simple web search on "tea party signs threaten violence" turned up photos of some of the Tea Party Nation's "fine bunch of folks" at their rallies with the following signs. I'm sure if I'd searched a little harder I could have found even more . . .

"Death to the Dictator (Theirs and Ours)"

"WARNING: I'm a bitter Christian clinging to my gun"

"WARNING: If Brown can't stop it, a BROWNING can" (yellow sign with crime tape border and a picture of a Browning handgun)

"Hang 'em High – Traitors in Congress – Pelosi Reed Waters Schumer Frank Dodd Conyers Kerry Clinton Kennedy" (guess this tea partier didn't know that Hillary Clinton is not longer in Congress)

"Guns Tomorrow" (only the back side photographed, no idea what the front said; I'm sure it was sosmething equally catchy)

"Our tax dollars given to Hamas to kill Christians, Jews and Americans" – "Thanks Mr O" - "To aid & comfort terrorists is a act of treason" – The U.S. Constitution states the convicted shall suffer Death"
----------
And then there's the publishing of specific target information (albeit wrong) by a "fine" Virginia Tea Party representative (not just a random rally-goer):

"Mike Troxel, an organizer for the Lynchburg Tea Party who has been active in the organization since it launched last year" . . . "angry over Rep. Thomas Perriello's (D-Va.) vote in favor of health care reform published what he thought was the freshman member's home address on a blog, in case any readers "want to drop by" and provide a "personal touch" to their views. Rather than giving out Perriello's address however, the tea party activist mistakenly printed the home address of the congressman's brother. Perriello's brother and wife have four children under the age of 8." . . ."In an interview with POLITICO, Troxel admitted to writing the post and said that he has no intention of removing the address from the blog." Web Link

"The Albemarle County Fire Marshal's Office and the FBI have concluded that a severed gas line outside of the house of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother was "an act of vandalism." . . ."a tea party activist incorrectly posted the address of Perriello's brother on a local blog – believing it to be the congressman's home address – and encouraged readers to "drop by" to express their anger of Perriello's vote in favor of the health care bill." Web Link
----------
And then of course, there's all the threatening phone calls received by Democratic Congressional members . . . and not just those Rep Pelosi received that led to the FBI arresting a SF man.

"Anger over the health-care overhaul has led to a nearly threefold increase in recent months in the number of serious threats against members of Congress, federal law enforcement officials said."..."The incidents ranged from very vulgar to serious threats, including death threats"..."The threats, which have led to at least three arrests, have not abated since President Obama signed the measure into law March 23. The Capitol Police have contacted the FBI about such threats even more often since the law was signed, said Lindsay Godwin, an FBI spokeswoman."..."Some officials say the real change in recent weeks has been that members aren't keeping such incidents private anymore. "Normally, we don't give publicity to this," said Rep. Dan Lungren (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House committee that oversees the Capitol Police." Web Link


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 13, 2010 at 8:41 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

As applicable today as it was when it was written...

"Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

- Alexander Hamilton


Posted by sharon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2010 at 7:44 am

jmf01 - your comment: "another false statement and an outright smear" regarding the assertion that violence inciting language has been used by tea party types appears sufficiently debunked by Rae's post. Perhaps you would not suggest or contribute this type of language yourself, but to deny that all individuals within the tea party movement are innocent of this behavior is clearly inaccurate.

Not all tea party supporters contribute to the violence within that movement, but to turn a blind eye to that which does exist makes it appear that the end justifies the means - regardless of the cost. Is this where you stand? Truly, I don't think so. I think you are misguided but you don't strike me as someone who would encourage violence against others as a means of furthering your agenda.

Is there a way you can support your views yet also acknowledge that not everyone who shares your position expresses their beliefs in a rational, non-violent fashion?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 14, 2010 at 8:03 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Ah politics! No serious candidate for California office wanted to speak at the Tea Party in Pleasanton if the more unhinged in the movement attended! Web Link


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 14, 2010 at 8:10 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Melson is quoted as saying, "This is not what the Tea Party is about at this point."

The Tea Party is a movement about fiscal conservatism, not conspiracy theories. It was NEVER what the Tea Party was about, not at this point now and not at any point in the past.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 14, 2010 at 8:16 am

Thanks a teeny bit for being reasonable Sharon, but you mischaracterized my statement as well

I stand by this

much of the rhetoric he (McVeigh) used and the opinions he expressed are exactly like those expressed by the "fine bunch of folks" from the Tea Party Nation faithful at their rallies and on this forum

absolutely false statement and an outright smear

you flirt with violence by using gun terms and inflammatory rhetoric, or publish phone numbers and addresses of target individuals as a call to "action", knowing that there is a radical fringe who believe in violence, you bear some responsibility for the ensuing violence.

another false statement and an outright smear, and if you are referring to the use of the word reload by Sarah Palin, I mean, c'mon, get real.


As for Rae, "SURE if I'd searched a little harder I could have found even more " just like Fang was SURE the N-word was used, it is a presumption of something that isn't there.

I'm a bitter Christian clinging to my gun, for example, is a mockery of something spoken first by Sen Obama pandering to San Franciscans for votes for President.

Something I already said which I stand by: I will put up an extremist from the other end of the political spectrum for each one you have, so that is quite pointless

and

As I said, there are extremists in any crowd, you would acknowledge that as well, would you?

But Rae would not.

And as PMom said:

Come out to the Pleasanton Fairgrounds Thursday (TOMORROW) the 15th from 2-7pm, you will be surprised.


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Apr 14, 2010 at 8:50 am

"jimf01" just said, *again*, "As I said, there are extremists in any crowd, you would acknowledge that as well, would you? But Rae would not."

Talk about an "absolutely false statement and an outright smear" . . .

May I refer you to my post above dated Apr 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm that contains the following:

""jimf01" said, "there are extremists in any crowd, you would acknowledge that as well, would you?"

Of course! And a crowd, fired up by rhetoric designed to incite "action", will bring out the worst in some people - especially when they can hide in the anonymity of a crowd, or on a phone, or in the dark of night, or even on a forum. However, we can each only be responsible for our own actions, which is why, although I *will* exercise my right to free speech by expressing my opinions, I choose not to respond in kind to those of you who choose name-calling as your form of communication."
----------
While it may be true that the Tea Party movement started out as "a movement about fiscal conservatism, not conspiracy theories" as Stacey noted, just the fact that Orly Taitz was an invited speaker to the upcoming rally says they're moving off message. Note that it wasn't until main-stream Republican candidates complained that she was uninvited.

I'll say it...again, if the Tea party leadership doesn't want to be associated with the nastiness coming out of the right, then perhaps they should take a stronger stand against the violence, conspiracy theories and the radical fringe instead of encouraging it.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2010 at 9:12 am

jmf - if "reload" is not a gun reference, I don't know what else it would be in reference to.

You have no idea whether the n-word was used or not, neither do I. Some say they heard it, some say they didn't. The lack of video filming at that exact moment doesn't prove/disprove anything.

The same political minded folks that contributed these signs (reposting from Rae):

"Death to the Dictator (Theirs and Ours)"

"WARNING: I'm a bitter Christian clinging to my gun"

"WARNING: If Brown can't stop it, a BROWNING can" (yellow sign with crime tape border and a picture of a Browning handgun)

"Hang 'em High – Traitors in Congress – Pelosi Reed Waters Schumer Frank Dodd Conyers Kerry Clinton Kennedy" (guess this tea partier didn't know that Hillary Clinton is not longer in Congress)

"Guns Tomorrow" (only the back side photographed, no idea what the front said; I'm sure it was sosmething equally catchy)

"Our tax dollars given to Hamas to kill Christians, Jews and Americans" – "Thanks Mr O" - "To aid & comfort terrorists is a act of treason" – The U.S. Constitution states the convicted shall suffer Death"

Certainly sound like they are inciting violence to me.

I understand that extremists exist on both sides of the issue - and though you state that you understand this, you appear to either deny or justify when those in question agree with your particular agenda.

Finally, I would do nothing suggested by PMom. When I first started reading her threads and posts, I honestly thought she was joking. I haven't seen an original thought or honest response to a question that doesn't have a copy paste from a lunitic fringe article.

I've had to live the current system in both my professional and personal life and have had to digest the proposed changes from their inception (too many times). If there was any language in there that compromised the health of seniors (aka "death panels") or mandated microchipping of all Americans (I hope I get points for typing that with a straight face), believe me, I would have figured it out.

Realistically, this comes down to money, and I can understand that. There are those (like me) who don't mind contributing more so that that others with no coverage can have "something", and those that don't want a universal system to exist whether they will be impacted financially or not.

Where do you stand?


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on Apr 14, 2010 at 9:25 am

Speaking of encouraging the fringe . . .

"Tea party leader J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea began soliciting interest in a state militia through his newsletter under the subject "Buy more guns, more bullets.""

Read more: Web Link


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 14, 2010 at 9:44 am

I stand with both of these:

There are those (like me) who don't mind contributing more so that that others with no coverage can have "something"

and those that don't want a universal system to exist


Those "others" already have "something", and I already contribute more, in the form of taxes and charitable contributions, what I do not want is to contribute more and more and more, and I don't want to allow the progressive agenda to advance.

No thinking person would deny anyone health care, and any thinking person can see it is possible to give everyone health care without creating 159 new commissions, boards, and agencies.


Posted by sharon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2010 at 11:58 am

and so, jmf01, I ask (yet again)...if you or your tea party buddies have a better system to ensure coverage (including preventive services) to all (and, no, not everyone has "something" - you are in an enviable position if you don't know this already)- where has this system been all these years while so many Americans are being denied benefits?

Have you taken to heart the contributions of your neighbors who have posted about lost benefits due to job loss or pre-existing conditions? You are likely in the position of not experiencing this first hand - so am I. However, I feel grateful to those who have shared their experience and for the expereince I have had with my own family (my brother recently had his claim for a chest x-ray denied stating a pre-existing condition clause - none existed as the x-ray was to screen for pneumonia. Anything related to a heart condition is automatically denied as he has a diagnosis which puts him at higher risk - through no fault of his own).

I see that you feel that you contribute enough already - good for you. I feel lucky that I didn't come into this life with a condition that conveniently allows insurance companies to deny coverage for various services that might save my life. Out of gratitude for this, and because I have both a personal and professional understanding around these very real deficits in the system, I'm willing to contribute more.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Rea, just saw your post. I read that also - Berry's behavior is violence inciting and irresponsible.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 14, 2010 at 12:22 pm

Sharon - you like others, annoyingly twist my words over and over. You added the word "enough", I didn't use it.
Your stories of anecdotal issues with health care and health insurance are certainly quite troubling for those who experience them directly. But my view of what the progressives plan for health care in this country will do for people is obviously different from yours. Outcomes are consistently worse when people have to wait longer for treatments, specialist referrals, etc. Obviously these issues have been debated over and over.
Plain and simple, uninsured, pre-existing, etc. These folks can receive health care and insurance without the need for a giant $1trillion scheme (anyone care to make a wager that the cost over ten years will exceed that?), additional IRS powers, etc. The federal government is not best qualified to administer health insurance for all in this country.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2010 at 1:29 pm

jmf - your comment:

"what I do not want is to contribute more and more and more"

I interpreted as an expression that you felt you were contributing enough. If I misinterpreted, I apologize.

In the current system, many people do not have access to preventive medical care so the impact of acute medical crises on the system of reimbursement related to this and the myriad of other status quo issues is staggering.

You have made this type of comment several times:

"Plain and simple, uninsured, pre-existing, etc. These folks can receive health care and insurance without the need for a giant $1trillion scheme (anyone care to make a wager that the cost over ten years will exceed that?), additional IRS powers, etc. The federal government is not best qualified to administer health insurance for all in this country."

my question remains - how will these needs then be met? If the solution is known by you or your tea party faithfuls, by all means, lets hear it. I'm open to another system - but I have yet to hear anything other than what you think does not work with the current proposal. In your opinion - what WILL work?


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 14, 2010 at 3:42 pm

It is not up to the TEA Party to come up with the answers, but clearly we have a Democrat Party that has passed something that is unsustainable - smoke and mirrors

$38 trillion that Medicare currently owes to the American people. 100% of that is unfunded. Where will the money come from?

$52 billion of savings is claimed by counting increased Social Security payroll revenues. These dollars are already claimed for future Social Security beneficiaries

$72 billion in savings is claimed from the CLASS Act long-term care insurance. These so-called savings are not offsets, but rather premiums collected to pay for future benefits

Aside from the fallacy of ObamaCare, Rep Paul Ryans roadmap has some excellent ideas Web Link


Posted by Nurse Shark, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Apr 14, 2010 at 3:50 pm

jimf01,

If the Tea Party is serious, why shouldn't it propose viable answers? Is it your opinion that a political movement is all about whining and finding fault?

This sounds like a straight-up admission that there's nothing positive or constructive about the Tea Party movement.

Thanks for finally admitting it.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2010 at 4:29 pm

jmf - the CLASS act is one of the programs my office advocated for. It is a system whereby people can contribute to a long term care insurance program (much like disability insurance) to cover custodial (rather than skilled) needs, therefore reducing skilled nursing care and the resulting impact on the MediCal system of reimbursement. This represents significant savings over time.

It does appear that your platform is to disagree with a system you have learned about via misguided media - or PMom which is pretty much the same thing.

Tea parties and their ilk appear absent any constructive suggestions on providing preventive, meaningful coverage for all Americans. You've got nothing meaningful to offer other than your criticism.
That gets people like the families we (try to) serve at work and people like my brother nowhere.


Posted by radical, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 16, 2010 at 10:57 am

WHOOPS - The Dem-o-rat Tea Party smear is coming unraveled --- or at least the complicit lamestream media smear portion of it.

Web Link


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Jul 16, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Further indictment of Lee Fang of think progress, the obama admin puppet masters, and orchestraters of attempted tea party smears


Web Link


Posted by Tom, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 16, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Stacey, I place you in the same category of posters as Cholo.

On second thought, his posts are much more substantive.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 2,371 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 32 comments | 1,529 views

Weekly, TV30 to host Pleasanton mayoral, city council candidates' forum
By Gina Channell-Allen | 2 comments | 1,159 views

A Visit from Lulu
By Roz Rogoff | 4 comments | 756 views