Posted on 02/25/2011 11:59:07 AM PST by lbryce
"Here's the latest evidence that nothing has changed in post-Tucson America..." Writes Justin Elliott in Salon:
A person at a Tuesday town hall with Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., got up and asked, "Who is going to shoot President Obama?"
The exact wording of the question is not clear because, the Athens Banner-Herald reports, there was a lot of noise at the event.
If you don't know the "exact wording," why do you have some words in quotes? This non-quote has gone viral in the leftosphere, the leftosphere where no one seems to mind all the violent and over-the-top language and imagery at the week-long Wisconsin protests. If you don't have that quote, why are you spewing it out there? Maybe what hasn't changed post-Tucson is you?
Seriously. Why put out a quote that you don't have? You're trying to stir people up and create discord! You are the problem you are talking about? Do you have any self-awareness at all?
The question prompted a "big laugh" from the crowd, in Oglethorpe County, Ga., according to the Banner-Herald. Broun, for his part, did not object to the question. He said in response:
"The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president..."
And now, you want to attribute incivility to Broun, but you don't know what he heard. He mentions the president, so presumably, he caught that it was something anti-Obama, but beyond that you are making stuff up.
If the crowd was so big, and it was a planned event, where's the digital video? Don't tell me the crowd was too noisy for anyone to record it AND that the crowd heard it.
(Excerpt) Read more at althouse.blogspot.com ...
Certainly after Tucson no one here at FR needs to ponder, not for a fleeting moment, the conflagration that would have ensued had this been initiated from the right.
Two words: Useful Idiot.
In other words, a leftist.
“Whoever asked that question will probably be hearing from the Secret Service shortly.”
Not just a talk, but a search of his home, bank records, income tax files and he has subjected his family, his neighbors, his co-workers and his best friend from the second to long interviews by the Secret Service.
IOW, we really have no idea what was said, but this particular divination suits our agenda.
If this really happened, then why didn't the witness contact the US Secret Service?
WOuldn’t it be likely they said “WHo’s going to STOP Obama”? not “Who’s going to shoot” him?
Unless there was just a big discussion about shooting the messenger or something, and somebody was trying to be funny.
If this was a real threat, you bet the SS would be all over it yesterday. Bet this is just another set up by some dim activist.
Given the track record behind assassinated public figures, I’d bet on it being a Democrat/Liberal long before I’d ever bet on it being a Conservative/Republican.
I don’t care if his is a Dem activist of a conservative activist. He needs to be examined by a team of secret service proctologists.
Performing the assassination, that is, not being the victim of the assassination.
When Palin’s life is threatened, in full view, AP/Salon/MSM yawn...
When it’s Obie or a Liberal, oh the humanity!
People value their ammo. They wouldn’t waste it on Obama.
He is personally responsible for ruining himself.
“Who is going to shoot President Obama?”
This reminds me of George Carlin’s bit on the importance of emphasis in a sentence.
In one form of emphasis on the word ‘Who’ the sentence can be construed as a statement that such a shooting would be absurd. With a different emphasis on the same word the sentence can be construed as a beseechment begging for someone to do this.
In any case, is this an incitement to violence or merely a question?
If it is merely a question or a speculation then the answers these days could include:
1. Muslims who feel that Obama was once a Muslim and they want to invoke Sharia Law on his leaving Islam. (Seriously, I’ve been worried about this one!)
2. Disaffected leftists who feel betrayed that Obama is entertaining cutting funding to their favorite social programs.
3. Keith Olbermann. (It wouldn’t surprise me if he was that desperate for ratings).
4. Joe Biden. I was amazed that Obama turned his back on this guy at the State of the Union address.
And then there’s the list of who would NOT do this:
1. Conservatives who are patient enough to wait for Jan 20, 2013 when Obama will leave office anyway.
2. Mexican cartel members who’ve been getting good deals on guns since Obama got charge of the BATFE and started illegally exporting quality US made firearms to Mexico.
3. Muammar Khaddafy who’s pretty happy with Obama’s silence on the massacres in Libya.
4. The royal families of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain who are happy like Khaddafy and for the same reason.
5. William Ayers. While Obama’s close, personal friend is a clear and present danger to everyone else it’s safe to say Obama has nothing to fear from this unrepentant terrorist.
6. Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Evo Morales, Kim Il Jung, and other unsavory leftist dictators whom Obama is fond of.
7. The UN General Assembly
8. Rahm Emanuel (for now).
This will be tonight’s big story on MSNBC and CNN, without a grain of truth.
“it’s a serious federal crime to threaten the life of the president”
I always wondered about threatening comments phrased in the form of a question. Can it really be a threat if it’s a question? Hold on, I know it is, practically speaking. For all intents and purposes, as they say. And the authorities have to take everything seriously, blah, blah, blah.
However, logically speaking, it presents a problem. Same way Vanilla Ice’s defense of his purported infringement on “Ice, Ice, Baby” presents a problem. If every note wasn’t the same, how can you honestly say it was infringement? Let me tell you, artists rip eachother off all the time. All the time! Most of them basically are counterfeiters. So why go after the Ice Man in particular? Because his ripoff was especially egregious. How do we know? Um...it felt that way.
The law cares about details, semantics, quibbles, etc. Does it care about the sort of logic to which I address myself? Probably not. You know a threat when you hear it, no matter how it’s phrased, and that’s all I’m getting at. Much of what we know is based on pure emotion, and the law isn’t always rational. Good day.
Maybe the so-called reporter heard it when he played his tape of the event backwards using a disgronificator?
What the heck is a ‘post Tucson America’?
“Reminiscent of the campaign event where a local democrat reporter shouted out ‘kill him’ during a McCain rally to start a similar story and blame it on some rightwinger. I bet this is the same tactic.”
I remember that, too. As I recall the reporter was the only one who heard it (or the only one on the record), and he didn’t provide to my satisfaction the context in such a way as to clearly demonstrate it was Obama the man wanted killed.
Not that it mattered. The press is predisposed to think Republican get-togethers are tantamount to a Nuremberg rally. Which is why in this case the real story, if you pay close attention, is that the crowd reportedly chuckled at the comment. The guy who said it can be written off as a nut. But why, oh why?!?, did the crowd join in? Ominous signs.
Does it make you sad that we’ve fallen into our old, uncivilized ways, candidate so-and-so? Are you willing to denounce those among your fans that joined in the desire to kill the president, candidate so-and-so? Why are your supporters nuts and racists, candidate so-and-so? Do you personally want to kill the president, candidate so-and-so? Why do black people trouble you, candidate so-and-so?
“What the heck is a ‘post Tucson America’?”
Haven’t you heard? Tuscon, Arizona was sucked into a vortex, and now rests in the crevice of a pockmark on the face of a giant slug in alternate dimension #346-53-59846-386348 of the multiverse.
Is Tucson where Gabrielle Giffords was shot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.