Tea Party Terrorists threaten Bart Stupak’s life:
Ah, the beauty of fundamentalism!
Recent Comments
- dmantis: Rich, “That when great scientists carry out their research they discover how... on Case For a Creator?
- UrsaMinor: On the bright side, no actual facts were harmed in the making of this video, thanks to the... on Still Earth
- Ben: I can actually feel myself getting dumber… on Still Earth
- Azel: Even admitting God is the source of morality, why should it be... on John Piper and Divine Command
- Custador: If I reply from the commenting dashboard it puts my comment first in the... on John Piper and Divine Command
- TrickQuestion: i just imagine the guy sitting there in a diaper, smacking a physics book with a... on Still Earth
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
Funny how passing a bill to keep people alive isn’t pro-life, but somehow being for the death penalty is.
“Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb bomb Iran” is a pro-life hymn, you know.
Isn’t there a presidential something or other to keep abortion stuff outta that bill?
There’s an executive order, yes, which simply strengthens the language that was ALREADY in the bill to prevent federal funds being used for abortions. But never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
“I’M pro life!and i will kill you to prove it!”*sigh* i wish i could understand why people don’t take a little time to examine them selves.
Also, did anyone else notice how none of these phone calls were able to:
a) Voice exactly what Stupak did wrong? That’s probably because he didn’t do anything wrong since there is nothing in the bill helping abortion.
b) Not use at least one swear word or expletive when describe Stupak? Of course, this is probably because none of them have more than a redneck-high school education.
I’m curious what the six second long expletive was that the first caller used to describe him. Must have been mighty creative.
Oh come on you know it isn’t terrorism unless it involves Muslims. Those were good christians working to bring about the justice of their god. LOL
“Exremism [sic] in the name of liberty is not a vice” was written on a note attached to a brick thrown through the window of a Democratic office somewhere. I can’t recall the exact details but the quote was quite something.
The original quote that they butchered was Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ): “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Ugh. I dislike it when idiots misuse good rhetoric to justify idiocy.
FWIW, he’s also the guy who said in 1994: “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
Excellent material on Goldwater’s struggle with the religious right in John Dean’s book ‘Conservatives Without Conscience’, which it sounds like you’ve already read.
And let’s not forget that the true hand of Hitler’s fascist Germany began to be revealed in one, horrific night of window breaking– Kristallnacht.
Beware America, jackbooted thugs may be on the march. They will stop at nothing, and if such mundane vandalism gets them nowhere, the next step will be to “water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants”– i.e. you know who.
Excellent material on Goldwater’s struggle with the religious right in John Dean’s book ‘Conservatives Without Conscience’, which it sounds like you’ve already read.
Yes. Goldwater was a fascinating political character, an actual ‘temperamental conservative’. There are very few of those left on any side of any aisle. It annoys me greatly that, lately, wingnut whackaloons have been appropriating some of his more considered libertarianish stuff as a rhetorical bludgeon, clearly without understanding the context or even really the content of his actual words.
He’s the evil one according to these fuckers? Heysoos!
Stupak is the patriarchist who tried to keep abortion funding OUT of the bill; why is HE being singled out for this abuse? Are these people calling pro-choice congresspeople with vitriol as well? The illogic of it is startling.
I was disgusted with him for his views before, but now I actually feel a little sorry for him.
The funny thing is he succeeded. Somehow health care reform still = lots more abortion though.
I have to suppress the desire for some evil laughter at Stupak expanse. He was the one who claimed the bill contain funding for abortion and threaten to vote against if that non-existent funding will not be taken out so he can get some air time. As expected once he got his ego boost from everybody including the president chasing him around he found that the abortion funding is no longer a problem. However by then the funding for abortion was a talking point on Fox, who are known for their rigorous fact checking, and from there you know how it ends. One thing I would like to see is will MSNBC, especially Rachel Maddow will keep following the story about Stupak’s contacts to the family and his time at the C street house now that he’s one of the good guys once more.
I don’t think Maddow and co would see Stupak as a good guy for holding the bill hostage for imaginary threats to imaginary babies.
They started digging into him when he was holding the bill hostage. What I hope is that, now that he came back to the light and voted yes, they won’t drop the story but follow up regardless.
I am still wondering where the christians get their moral?
From a god who favours misogyny, child and baby killing, and temper tantrums.
This is obvious, when you look at christians.
I don’t get it. I thought Stupak was one of the guys who made sure abortions wouldn’t be funded by the government healthcare? Shouldn’t these people be happy that he has at least ‘minimized the damage’? Correct me if I’m wrong, I have trouble following anybody’s logic in this whole healthcare thing.
I could be wrong Lessica but the majority of those in the Tea Party anymore aren’t there to work to a middle ground but they want their way or no way.
This is what the health care discussion runs on.
You assume that logic has ANY role in a Tea Party agenda.
Actually as far as I understood, the Tea Baggers still believe there will be some funding for abortions because the Bill is not explicit enough or does not go far enough to ensure there won’t be federal funding in the Bill. The President promised there would be a status quo, which means no federal funding for abortions.
I think basically all Republicans and especially Tea Baggers were expecting him to vote against the bill until the end. They just didn’t foresee him turning around at the very end and supporting the bill, and are just mad at him for not derailing the whole process. But you’re right, Stupak made sure that the President would add a Executive Order for the status quo. There was never anything in the Bill anyway in favor of abortion.
Ten bucks says that these people turned around and said “God is love!” to at least five people that day.
So we are counting negative thoughts as actual threats now? I didn’t hear anyone directly threatening him except based on the nonsense law of attraction.
And why are they calling him a baby killer? Is that just their general term for people they disagree with? “I can’t stand that pro-life baby killer’s anti-abortion religious views!”
There have been direct threats to him and other Democratic Congress people not covered in this video, actual vandalism of Democratic offices and I would count the “you’ll get yours, you should die” attitude in these unsolicited calls as threatening (though not, in this instance, terrorism).
Huh. Well, given that Stupak is in the most democratic district in a state that’s gone to the democrats in the last two presidential elections, I don’t think their threats of “You’re going to lose your seat” hold much water.
The rise of the Nazis in Germany also progressed from simple acts of random vandalism/violence as tools of political intimidation through more and more organized acts of destruction, such as Kristallnacht and eventually even the Reichstag Fire, as justification for seizure of total state power.
Also, at a certain point the SA– or brown shirts– which was a less ideologically fanatical group than the SS, and which did indeed have some elements within its ranks still laboring under the delusion that they were in fact “national socialists” or “moderate”, had to be decimated in the “Night of the Long Knives”– when its leadership was rounded up and shot, and the rank-and-file membership then fell into literal lock-step with the means and ends of the Fuhrer afterwards.
Am I over-hyping things? Well, as a fan of my Alma Mater, which has just made the Elite Eight in basketball, I can tell you that on one of the websites devoted to my team there is a side thread for political discussion. It is literally crawling with lunatics talking about secession, the need to “water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants”, along with promises that the military will soon turn against the communist, socialist, fascist Obamacrats, and America will, having purified itself of all of its Canaanites, once again become the Promised Land (actually, that last part is too complex for them to put together– I did it). But they do back-up their beliefs with the typical religious quotes taken out of context from one founding father or the other.
As a student of both the American Civil War and the rise of Nazi Germany, I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that I am beginning to become quite concerned that history is indeed repeating itself before our very eyes. I occasionally look at the picture window in my living room and wonder “when….”.
I agree, and believe that the teabaggers should be dealt with by homeland security. They are a threat to the nation and should be treated as such.
I’m sorry. My comment was meant to be a response to the comment below by nazani14.
I’ve noticed that the Tea Party invective and the threats by the even fringier fringe are increasingly directed at moderate Republicans, too. It sort of makes sense- while wing-nuts expect the Democrats to be “evil,” they may actually be angrier at Republicans who they feel have “betrayed” them by being civil, cooperative or even bipartisan.
I may have missed it, so sorry if I did, but where in those comments did anyone refer to themselves as being part of the Tea Party? Or is CBS just assuming that anyone calling with threats is a part of that movement?
I just don’t want to label an organization with something that might not have anything to do with them. I don’t put it past them, but I never heard anyone say they represented that movement.
A good point, we don’t have anything in the clip to suggest these are tea-partiers (aside from the circumstantial evidence of them being, like tea party members, incapable of understanding the bill or form a coherent sentence). We only have a snippet though, perhaps the full story on CBS expands on it, though the anchor doesn’t actually mention the term Tea Party anyway.
This whole thing is emotional and I don’t want to go around saying someone did something they didn’t. Maybe Daniel can show us where he got the idea for the title?
I just don’t want to stoop to their level is all; making shit up.
Agreed, it won’t help, even if it is tempting and easy to tar them all with the same brush. Then again, it is frustrating to know that most of them wouldn’t understand our attempts at making proper distinctions and being cautious in the first place.
Oh I feel you man.
Seems like an assumption, Yabo, and it’s a good question. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption, though. The only group in our society that’s been this opposed to the Health Care Bill has been the Tea Baggers, though.
I wouldn’t put it past them for sure.
But before I say to anyone “can you believe what ‘they’ did now” I’d rather have proof than.
Ah, does my soul good to just feel the mercy and power of christ flowing through me when I hear these christians, and I’m edified to how the love of jesus has lifted the lives and spirits of these right-wingers from fleshly and carnal to christlike. I’m sure before they were christians, they were meanspirited and hateful. Wow, what a transformation :)
Jesus wept….
(amirite?)
Healthcare is a right for those who commit crimes and get locked up. Why all this fuss over letting it be a right for the law-abiding portion of the country?
And how is it that some are so adamantly opposed to letting a woman have a right to choose whether to have a baby or not and at the same time make it quite clear they will help in NO WAY to provide for that baby’s healthcare once it is brought into this world?
Truly blows my mind.
This.
Agree,
agreed
This is a really good point. I know that there are pro-life organizations that help mothers carry their babies to term and provide services after birth, but they are few and far between (at least to my knowledge).
And don’t even get me started on the health care component. It’s so obviously inconsistent.
So, I guess I’m a bad atheist since I opposed (and continue to oppose) this healthcare bill. There are lots of really good, rational, non-religious reasons to oppose it… or do we all need to sing from the same hymnal (pun intended)? Similarly, can I agree with the goals of the “Tea Party” without being a religious wacko? I think I can I denounce the death threats and poor behavior on BOTH SIDES of this issue without sounding like a fundamentalist.
Am I the only atheist unwilling to label all fiscal conservatives as “fundamentalists”, and all atheists as “socialists”? I think I can be an atheist and a free-market conservative at the same time.
You can be an atheist and a free-market conservative at the same time all you want, but the Tea Party are clearly working with a religious bent to their goals. Also, there have not been death threats and poor behaviour on both sides. One side has used violence, death threats, racial and homophobic epithets, and complete fabrications to rile up their crowd. The other side… just hasn’t, as far as has been reported. Fox News are pretending that both sides are not playing nice on occasion but the only incident they have to speak of where a Republican congress person has been violently targeted was a bullet hitting a window which turned out to have been coming back to earth, fired into the air in an unrelated incident fairly far away, and not at all targeted at the building. Of course, though the police came to this conclusion earlier in the week, they are still using it as evidence of “both sides” being mean.
There are several atheists here who would identify themselves as fiscally conservative, so you’re not alone. And there are a few reasonable reasons to be against this health care bill, though I think it would be an exaggeration to say there are “lots of really good, rational, non-religious reasons”.
I’m sure you do have your non-religious reasons for not wanting this bill, and you can defintely be a fiscal conservative without being religious. Obviously, you are! But I’m wondering…do you think health care should be a profit business? Do you support the insurance companies raking in billions, then denying people coverage when they actually get sick (if the person no longer seems like a profitable client)? Do you know that the US spend far more money per capita on health care than most nations with universal health care? Maybe you are very wealthy, and this does not concern you. But if you are not, if your sister, child, or mother became ill, wouldn’t you want health care for them?
I recently watched a documentary called “Sick Around The World.” You can find it on Netflix instant. It was rather eye opening with how screwed up health care is here in the states.
We are the only major country that doesn’t consider health care a human right.
Not that this has anything to do with atheism, but I’ll play along (why not, right?).
“But I’m wondering…do you think health care should be a profit business?”
Yes, absolutely. It must be. The profit motive is required for advancement.
“Do you support the insurance companies raking in billions, then denying people coverage when they actually get sick…”
Yes and no (in that order). The average profit margin for the health insurance industry is 4%. That’s puny, and not much above typical retail sales margins. However, dropping a customer when they start to get expensive is wrong, and insurance policies should state clearly how that’s handled. Of course, this assumes that health insurance is a competitive industry, where individuals can shop around to get the coverage they want. That’s not the case due to government regulations. Which is why a free-market solution that allows shopping and consumer choice would be my preference… you know, fix the cause, not the symptom.
“Do you know that the US spend far more money per capita on health care than most nations with universal health care?”
Yes, I am aware of this. I did not say the status quo is right. Reform is necessary. But further government interference to fix problems caused mostly by government interference sounds irrational to me. What does government ever do well or efficiently?
“Maybe you are very wealthy, and this does not concern you. But if you are not, if your sister, child, or mother became ill, wouldn’t you want health care for them?”
I see, it’s the unfeeling, evil rich that are the problem. No, I’m firmly ensconced in the middle class. Of course I want everyone to have the care they need. Here’s an idea, let’s make healthcare insurance real insurance instead of a healthcare payment plan. I don’t expect my auto insurance to cover oil changes, so why should I expect my health insurance to cover a doctor visit? If we’d fix these things, insurance and healthcare in general would be more affordable.
Now, what does any of this have to do with atheism?
“Now, what does any of this have to do with atheism?”
I wasn’t aware we weren’t allowed to talk about anything else.
*Sigh*. Of course you are. You missed my point, which is my fault. Sorry to have interfered in your enjoyment of the blog. I’ll shut up now.
What kinds of people do you think call in death threats and wishes to a congressman and use the term “baby-killer”?
“We think you are a devil.”
“Was it worth it, selling your soul?”
“All of those thoughts projected on you will materialize into something that’s not very good for you. We don’t have to do anything but sit back and wish.. go to hell.”
You can have the same politics, but I didn’t think this post was about politics, just the people who issue threats and use foul language and wish death to a person and their family. Does that not have anything to do with atheism enough for you?
Yep, I get it. Sorry.
Unless you were one of the ones threatening Stupak’s life, I fail to see how this would have anything to do with you being a “bad” atheist.
I guess it depends on your definition of “lots”, but certainly I have found more than enough to justify my opposition. But that brings me back to the real point of my post… off-hand statements that reveal your underlying politics detract from the religion/atheism discussion.
Obviously, this isn’t my blog, so I can read or not as I choose, but when these kinds of discussions prevail, I lose interest. The discussion on atheists recognizing a Christian… that’s interesting. The Catholic church’s handling of pedophile priests… germane. “An open letter to conservatives”?, oh please, count me out… I can read that tripe elsewhere, should I care to. “Libel”? Um… now why did I come to this blog? Oh yeah, faith, religion, atheism… I remember.
You’re right, it’s not your blog. Whoever it belongs to can post whatever they want, and can reveal their underlying politics if they feel like it. Though I’m not sure what off-hand statements you are referring to.
But you’re kind of glossing over everything I just said to you and sounding just indignant that people might disagree with you, which is sort of putting you in the camp of the Tea Partiers anyway. I’d hate to see that happen. If you don’t feel like reading/commenting on things that are “germane” or “tripe”, don’t bother. I greatly contest that latter charge anyway, it is a reasonable letter and if you think so poorly of a backed up critique of the ‘conservative movement’ with an off-hand insult then it kind of betrays your own politics, doesn’t it?
OK, “tripe” might have been too strong. Sure the article was interesting to someone, but there was nothing about religion or atheism in it. If people criticizing the C of E were being targeted for libel suits, I’d see the connection. But there wasn’t one.
As for revealing my politics, did I? I’m not sure it matters, but here you go: pro-choice, for gay marriage, for legalized recreational drugs, for legalized prostitution, in favor of invading Afghanistan and Iraq, also in favor of withdrawing, for domestic oil exploration, pro-nuke (power), against government schools… does it really matter? As for this blog, for separation of church and state, former Catholic now atheist, not agnostic, against government funding for stem cell research, but in favor of private funding.
I’m just sayin’… by straying off-topic, you’ll lose some needed support. It’s like Republicans getting into bed with fundamentalists… lots of good conservative Republicans (like me) have had to disassociate themselves with the GOP. Some (many?) atheists are turned off by leftist politics.
This isn’t a political party. Again, it’s a guy’s blog. He doesn’t have to strategise with it, just post whatever interests him. Some posts don’t interest me, so I just ignore them, I don’t get annoyed by it. This blog is not about me and what I’m interested in or what I see the connections between, if I want that I’ll write my own.
Yeah, but if every third article insults your political views, how long do you continue to read (how often would you watch Fox News for the stock market report)? I set the limit at about two months (don’t want to be hasty, after all). So, I’m off to find a more religion-focused atheist blog… believe me, they’re hard to find.
Sorry to have intruded.
It isn’t Daniel’s job to not insult your political views. I understand you may just be venting a frustration that atheist blogs tend to have a political bent to their articles as well, when you want something a bit different, but the way you have expressed it just makes you seem to want someone to write exactly what you want rather than what they want. If blogs you like are so hard to find, why not start your own? You could keep commenting now and then here and maybe draw some readers.
Feel free to leave if you can’t learn to filter out stuff you don’t like. I post about things I find interesting. Maybe tomorrow it will be world peace, the next day my cat. If you don’t like it, then I’ve heard there are other sites on the web to visit… :)
I think you’ll find, though, most of the posts are about atheism, science, skepticism, or — occasionally — politics.
This post is relevant because of its extremism, which in this case has religious roots.
Why do you find this offensive to your political views? Do you somehow support people threatening this man’s life? I don’t get it.
Got it. They are religious nutcases. Why the Tea Party connection?
Do you think the people who did that were not part of the Tea Party movement? They certainly weren’t democrats… ;)
To be fair, there is no indication that the people in this particular clip are related to the Tea Party, but the party and its members have been caught in similar rhetoric time and again.
Any other ideas who it would be? Who else gets worked up about this stuff so much?
Republicans, Christians, all sorts of right wingers who aren’t necessarily in the Tea Party itself.
Republican Christians who would say do are, IMO, teabaggers. :)
Teabaggers/wing-nuts and the Tea Party are slightly different. You’re conflating the two and, while you’d often be right, it’s just not accurate to say these people are definitely MEMBERS of the Tea Party when they might be members of the GOP exclusively, or something else.
I didn’t say they were definitely all part of the tea party. I could be wrong. But that’s my assumption because they fit the profile. Teabaggers = right-wing nutjobs. I use the term synonymously. The term to me is representative of the all the right-wing nutjobs, even if they don’t call themselves that.
Well, at least you’re honest about your bigotry. I can respect that.
Bigotry? That’s a pretty harsh term. It’s also an absurd statement, given the discussion as I’ve followed it here.
I don’t know a single racist, sexist/homophobic, religious fanatic who is left of what passes for center in the US– a center which is itself far-right. And I don’t know a single self-described person right of that “center” who doesn’t exhibit one or another degree of those very things.
More importantly, they evince a general, sweeping disgust with have-nots– whom they seem to feel are out to get their money even if they’re poor themselves. This seems to be the real source of rich white Tea Party rage http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6905467/Powerful-people-more-guilty-of-moral-hypocrisy-study-finds.html , while lies, propaganda, and manipulation of reality are more likely the source of rage within the white working class element of the Tea Party– http://www.physorg.com/news171895728.html .
You wouldn’t by any chance be an atheist of the Ayn Rand stripe, would you Chris?
I read and agree with Ms Rand on many things, though not all, due probably to ignorance on my part. Suggest you look up bigotry… never mind, here it is:
“a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own”
No racism, sexism, or homophobia is required. Just brand all teabaggers as wackos and you’re there.
Oh, and a previous poster should look up “germane” also.
Sorry if I offended anyone. I’ll retract the “bigot” label if you think it doesn’t apply. Do you?
“I didn’t say they were definitely all part of the tea party”
Check the title of this very entry. You did say this was the Tea Party’s doing. You have no evidence of that. There’s no good in being intellectually sloppy; we have plenty of other names for these violent nutjobs, and making mistakes like this just adds to their persecution complex if we end up getting their particular affiliation wrong and can be written off as “bigots” who are just tarring them all with the same brush.
“Oh, and a previous poster should look up “germane” also.”
I ready that as generic, my bad.
* read. Dammit.
Oh, I had actually already looked up the definition of bigotry, but after looking at this discussion thread, could find no evidence of intolerance or prejudice on anyone’s part, merely opinion.
John, you’re alright. I take back all the things I said about you when I was ranting about this to my wife :-)
Relles, does someone have to act on their opinions to become a bigot, or merely state them? Someone who says “women should get back in the kitchen” is a bigot. Someone who says “Tea Party members are all violent, religious nutjobs” is also a bigot. You don’t have to paint a swastika on a synagogue to be a bigot, though if you do, you are, and you’re a criminal (for defacing property, not for having a certain thought in your head in the process).
Don’t put words in my mouth, Chris. I didn’t say “Tea Party members are all violent, religious nutjobs.” I don’t believe that at all. Hell I consider most of my family teabaggers, even though they might not identify with the party. But they’re not violent. (Though they do tend to be religious nutjobs…)
Ha! Fair enough. I did get that backwards. You said (in effect) “all violent, religious nutjobs calling Stupak are Tea Party members.” Different, but just as bad. Sounds the same as “all violent crime in our town is caused by blacks.” Still bigoted in my opinion.
I have my share of religious nutjobs in my family, though my wife and I have managed to raise two free-minded boys to adulthood. Score two for the heathens!
“Someone who says “Tea Party members are all violent, religious nutjobs” is also a bigot.”
You be sure to let me know the next time someone who isn’t has the mike, ok?
I didn’t say that either, Chris. That would be stupid. Islamic extremists are not teabaggers.
I said that *I consider* right-wing extremists to be teabaggers. That’s my label for them. I call all religious fundamentalists “fundies” too, whether they would call themselves that or not.
These people may not actually be members of the tea party, but they hold to their ideals and their beliefs fit under that canopy (again, *to me*).
How is that bigoted? I’m not saying all tea party folks are unintelligent. I’m not saying they should all be locked up. I’m not saying they’re all going to kill people. I’m not saying I hate them. Again, many of my family love Sarah Palin and her ilk.
I find it *highly* insulting that you think it’s the same as if I said “all violent crime in our town is caused by blacks”. I think you need to rethink that, because it doesn’t compare at all. The logic is completely different, it would be verifiably untrue, and it would be racist.
In the US, anyway, religion and politics are inseparable. Christianity is used to legitimize anti-choice, anti-gay, and mysgenist viewpoints. Religion has been front and centre in politics, especially since the repubs got into bed with the christian right.
You’re right about that. Although, to be fair, some sects of Christianity as less “anti-gay” than others.
Religion has been front and centre in politics, especially since the repubs got into bed with the christian right.
In my lifetime, this is certainly true, but I’d be willing to bet that Civil Religion goes back a lot farther than my lifetime.
IMO, it would be impossible for me to completely separate my personal worldview, which is informed by my own faith, from my politics. I don’t think that’s a bad thing for me or anyone else. But there’s a clear difference between faith informing a public (and hence up for criticism) political perspective and legislating and enforcing a personal conviction.
The American Civil Religion:
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/008/Civil%20Religion%20By%20Richard%20V%20Pierard_008_4_.htm
There is also a difference between you personally, or in a non-religious political group, trying to express your world’s vision through your vote or lobbying, and a church doing so. I have no problem with anyone doing the first as far as we both accept that our ideas may be challenged in the process.
his could be the outstanding weblog page for anyone who wants to know about this theme. You recognize a good deal its virtually difficult to argue with you (not that I truly would want…HaHa). You absolutely put a fresh spin on a topic matter thats been published about for a lot of years. Amazing items, just superb!