Dem lawmaker on labor protests: 'Get a little bloody when necessary'

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by centurion1211

 

So do you now condemn all uses of rhetoric like this...or just in this case???

Because I think he is a moron for using that kind of rhetoric...just as Palin is....I am ok calling it out on both sides.

Are you?

Depends on the real meaning behind it.

Most people can understand that the use (by both parties as it turns out) of target symbols on a flyer or poster does not mean actually shooting at someone with a firearm.

However, I also think that most people understand saying "go out in the street and get bloody" is actually inciting violence.

Apples and oranges.

But perhaps to better answer your question, I would condemn anyone on the right for using the same type of rhetoric - if one ever does.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by centurion1211

 

I am not sure how other people fight but when I am getting bloody, it means I am the one being wounded. Getting bloody is not really something I associate with beating someone else. They bleed when I hurt them.

Inciting violence is just that.

It doesn't matter who ends up "getting bloody".

Major 's for that post of yours.

Originally posted by ganjoa
I am old - back when we took to the streets when I was young "Get a little bloody" didn't necessarily mean violence - it meant getting bloodied by police in an otherwise peaceful protest or demonstration. Why would one assume this idiot is advocating violence instead of admitting the real probability that any kind of protesters are going to get their heads bashed in. Again. Still. This is America after all, when push comes to shove is when the trouble begins. I remember Watts, Harlem, 68 Democratic Convention, Raising of the Pentagon, Kent State, MLK's assisination - not all of these riots and demonstrations began peacefully, but the response to them was mostly the same: force, violence - the iron fist.

ganjoa

Allow me to illuminate this a little bit. I was too young to be involved in the "Viet Nam" protests, but I do have experience protesting with (then, fellow) democrats in 2001. I take "getting bloody" to mean that the protestors should force the confrontation with law enforcement/ counter protestors to the point that "violence" happens. It is a set up. (One of the protests I went to, our cops were stopping traffic for us, smiling and friendly. We were protesting at an American Legion convention where Bush was speaking. When people started coming out of the building, the "leader" of the group I was with decided that we should move from the sidewalk to the portico and move *against* the flow of people coming out of the convention center. The third time I saw her "bump into" one of the elderly veterans leaving the building, I went to the car. They were apparently asked not once, but several times to move back to the sidewalk and it was "police brutality" and "first amendment zones" (a bald faced lie and she knew it) when they returned to the car and we left.

Look up the term "agitator" in the context of the 60s protests and maybe concerning "labor movements"- people like Bill Ayers, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, etc. Like the hellfire and damnation preachers who gin up their "flocks" to a hysterical frenzy, agitators do just the same. Their whole purpose is to override people's common sense and even decency by making them SO angry and so crazy that they will do anything (EDIT: they are told to do).

Who has "the iron fist" here? The authorities who try to maintain order and public safety or the ones who go into it intending to create a chaotic, incendiary, and dangerous situation to try and force what they want by whatever means necessary?

Originally posted by centurion1211
But perhaps to better answer your question, I would condemn anyone on the right for using the same type of rhetoric - if one ever does.

"If ever"? Here's a few things for you to start condemning:

The compilation below features Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and King:

MCCAUL: They fought against tyranny and oppressive taxes, do that sound familiar? We’re continuing that revolution right here in Austin, Texas today. Thomas Jefferson said the Tree of Liberty will be fed by the blood of tyrants and patriots. You are the modern day patriots. [...] * * * * *

BARTON: What are the homeland security people calling us now?
AUDIENCE: Domestic terrorists! Terrorists!
BARTON: Welcome right-wing activists — is that what we are?
AUDIENCE: Extremists!
BARTON: Yeah extreme, well I’m going to get me a button. * * * * *

BACHMANN: I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. * * * * *

KING: If I could start a country with a bunch of people it would be the folks standing out here the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that. Let’s beat that other side to a pulp. Let’s take them out, let’s chase them down.

Source with video of the statements

reply to post by ganjoa


Bravo on trying to rationalize and change the meaning of what was said by blaming the Police, who I might add have been present but disengaged.

nice try though.. Obfuscation only works os much before the people get tired of the lies, which is exactly what the union members are doing.

Dont beleive me, take a tally on how many protesting teachers called in sick, and how many more were able to get bogus doctor slips??

I think this needs to be handeled in the same manner Reagan handled the striking air traffic control workers.

Fire thier asses.

this is getting zero coverage in the national news
good catch; if not for this thread I'd probably have never heard of this.
dems and unions are joined at the hip and they are taking this very, very seriously.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Inciting violence is just that.

Who said anything "inciting" violence? "Get bloody" is inciting?

It doesn't matter who ends up "getting bloody".

Major

's for that post of yours.

Confused you?

reply to post by centurion1211

Depends on the real meaning behind it.

Most people can understand that the use (by both parties as it turns out) of target symbols on a flyer or poster does not mean actually shooting at someone with a firearm.

However, I also think that most people understand saying "go out in the street and get bloody" is actually inciting violence.

Apples and oranges.

LOL...perfect...perfect answer....to show your hypocrisy.


That is all I really need to know, I now know what to categorize you as and there is no need to ever take you serious.

Originally posted by works4dhs
this is getting zero coverage in the national news
good catch; if not for this thread I'd probably have never heard of this.
dems and unions are joined at the hip and they are taking this very, very seriously.

Not sure what state or country you live in, but this is all over the MSM, from wisconsin, to Ohio, whose democratic lawmakers fled their state to prevent any type of vote on unions.

I feel as though this is violent sounding propaganda. The thing is folks... This is a fight. There is no need to act in violence and it hasn't happened. The use of the symbolism and rhetoric on both sides is ok by me. As long as it is used with a diclaimer that they don't actually condone violence. Most of this propaganda is used to incite anger emotionally. I really feel as though being in an enlightened socity we can see tell difference in the use of symbolism and a play on words with something like

Anyone who undermines state will be punished by death

He called upon his supporters to take back the streets from those who have been rebelling against his rule. He said they should go out tonight and "chase them".

www.guardian.co.uk...

Stop pretending you fail to see the difference to incriminate the other party. Humans relate to violence and war. It is a source of anger and sadness. It can ignite the passions of the MSM zombies who just believe what is on TV. A call to arms is used as a rallying cry for both parties and neither should be bastardized for doing so. For me personally I need no inciting to action as I am aware. Others are not. Let them be roused. Awake your brothers and sisters and use whatever images you need to in order to do so. The greater crime is allowing the American people to walk blindly.

More proof that extremists, radicals, and morons have infiltrated every race, nationality, religion, political party, political ideology, gender, and humanity? Not a shocker, eh? Win at all costs, even if it decimates your country or the world!

I'm glad we're keeping track of all these morons, so we know who not to vote for next time.

Here is my same reply, to the other thread, about the same thing.

I don't care who this guy is or what he believes, but he is just using a figure of speech. It's no different than telling people to put some elbow grease into it, or a hundred other terms. Has no one here ever worked at a physical job, where sometimes you need to "get a little bloody" to get the job done? All he is saying is stop being arm chair quarterbacks and show real support.... i.e. get off your duffs, an email means nothing. Is he wrong about that?

And no, I do not support this guy.You guys are acting like this guy jumped off the podium, and started stabbing people in the face with a spear who don't agree, all while incouraging the others to join in to the violence. THIS IS DEMOCRATICA!!(300 reference...lol)

Other Thread

Tit for tat, right? It's like two kids fighting in the back seat over nothing(dems, repubs). If George Washington was driving the car, he would pull over, pull you both out of the car, beat you unmercifuly(sp), and leave you on the side of the road. He would be embarassed if other countrys assumed you were his kids.

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Here is my same reply, to the other thread, about the same thing.

I don't care who this guy is or what he believes, but he is just using a figure of speech. It's no different than telling people to put some elbow grease into it, or a hundred other terms. Has no one here ever worked at a physical job, where sometimes you need to "get a little bloody" to get the job done? All he is saying is stop being arm chair quarterbacks and show real support.... i.e. get off your duffs, an email means nothing. Is he wrong about that?

And no, I do not support this guy.You guys are acting like this guy jumped off the podium, and started stabbing people in the face with a spear who don't agree, all while incouraging the others to join in to the violence. THIS IS DEMOCRATICA!!(300 reference...lol)

Other Thread

Tit for tat, right? It's like two kids fighting in the back seat over nothing(dems, repubs). If George Washington was driving the car, he would pull over, pull you both out of the car, beat you unmercifuly(sp), and leave you on the side of the road. He would be embarassed if other countrys assumed you were his kids.

edit on 2/23/2011 by LordBaskettIV because: (no reason given)

Exactly. People need to use their brains. Stop pretending to be offended by normal adages and symbolism. Metaphor isn't meant to be taken directly. Really people just need to strap on their big boy pants and learn to accept language as such. Stop being offended in the name of your party. No politician means that anyone should do violence. They want to keep their cushy jobs after all. The rhetoric is meant to get people to stand up for what they believe in and be as loud mouthed as these guys spewing the propaganda.

Great advice!

First you have to be angry , not just mad , then you have to actually fight back when the cops see your anger & try to intimidate/beat you back into submission & from attaining your goals. Pacifism can be a good tactic, but so can actually fighting back, & they can be used side by side as well. A multitude of groups with a multitude of tactics. Claiming otherwise is a little too 1095-1291 CE.
Nah mean?

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Depends on the real meaning behind it.

Most people can understand that the use (by both parties as it turns out) of target symbols on a flyer or poster does not mean actually shooting at someone with a firearm.

However, I also think that most people understand saying "go out in the street and get bloody" is actually inciting violence.

Apples and oranges.

LOL...perfect...perfect answer....to show your hypocrisy.


That is all I really need to know, I now know what to categorize you as and there is no need to ever take you serious.

Wrong.

It only proves you know nothing at all - which has been suspected by many since you showed up just in time to shill for obamacare when the court decision declaring it unconstitutional was due. I don't think anyone took YOU seriously after that performance.



For example, this official from Indiana was REALLY wrong.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by centurion1211
Inciting violence is just that.

Who said anything "inciting" violence? "Get bloody" is inciting?

Answer to your first question: The same type of mindset demonstrated by these people could conceivably call what the Mass. democrat said inciting violence.

Confused you?

From anything you said? Not even remotely possible.

reply to post by centurion1211


I'm not seeing your condemnation of those four instances of GOP elected officials using violent rhetoric perfectly comparable to this instance which I posted in reply to you? I just wanted to make sure you remembered to live up to your golden word to condemn the rhetoric on the right "when you see it." Giving you the chance to prove you're not a hypocrite.

reply to post by centurion1211

Wrong.

It only proves you know nothing at all - which has been suspected by many since you showed up just in time to shill for obamacare when the court decision declaring it unconstitutional was due. I don't think anyone took YOU seriously after that performance.

Oh no...I'm not taken seriously....


It's just hard for you to admit that you make excuses for the Right...isn't it???

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by centurion1211

 

I'm not seeing your condemnation of those four instances of GOP elected officials using violent rhetoric perfectly comparable to this instance which I posted in reply to you? I just wanted to make sure you remembered to live up to your golden word to condemn the rhetoric on the right "when you see it." Giving you the chance to prove you're not a hypocrite.

Then take off your blinders - and read all thread posts.

I already offered my own example of someone on the right that needed slapped down hard for this - and they were fired. So, that means the democrat congressmen should resign or be expelled from congress, right?

Funny when it's the right spewing violent rhetoric it's evil, yet when the left does it people try and spin it to be an innocent mistake. It's should be wrong on both sides, but of course in the real world it just doesn;t work that way. Typical thug with a typical response in my opinion, because violence surely has been an important part of union histroy in this country.