Van Hollen On Threats: The GOP Leadership Is Pouring Gasoline On Flames

[Niels Bohr 72]

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chair of the DCCC, called out the GOP leadership today for not working to change its anti-health care rhetoric -- rhetoric which Van Hollen says has contributed to recent threats and acts of violence toward lawmakers.

"The Republican leadership, instead of saying to its supporters around the country, 'calm down' ... they are pouring more and more gasoline on flames. And that is irresponsible. It's time that there be some adult supervision within the Republican party. That some Republican leader say, 'This is unacceptable,'" Van Hollen told MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

Van Hollen said the far right -- and its violent threats -- "is now the face of the Republican party."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Right Wing Mullahs better knock off the radical rhetoric before we have another domestic terrorism incident.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Right Wing Mullahs better knock off the radical rhetoric before we have another domestic terrorism incident.

Wishful thinking? The more the left and the press push the story, the more likely that the freaks and the pranksters will stir the pot. We already know the stories from last week were fabrications, as are many of the stories still being putting out. Herr Goebbels would be proud the way the DNC is pushing this propaganda.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Edited March 28, 2010 by ##########

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Right Wing Radicalism is a dangerous thing, Bill. Stop being a sympathizer.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Right Wing Radicalism is a dangerous thing, Bill. Stop being a sympathizer.

No such thing. Radicalism comes from the left. Reaction come from the right. Revolution comes when the circle closes, and anarchy reins in the name of revolution. Too bad they don't teach 18th and 19th century world history the way it happened anymore, or even the early 20th century history with some clarity. Modern Revisionism is taught instead.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No such thing. Radicalism comes from the left. Reaction come from the right. Revolution comes when the circle closes, and anarchy reins in the name of revolution. Too bad they don't teach 18th and 19th century world history the way it happened anymore, or even the early 20th century history with some clarity. Modern Revisionism is taught instead.

The New Deal has been the status quo in this country for more than 60 years, but if you want to draw lines along historical lineage, you should be siding with the Red Coats, Mr. Historian.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The New Deal has been the status quo in this country for more than 60 years, but if you want to draw lines along historical lineage, you should be siding with the Red Coats, Mr. Historian.

If you are placing the policies of FDR as the new establishment, then it is you that be siding with the Brits, NHS and all. So, I guess we are switching sides, again, since you are claiming the right conservative position, and leaving the rest of us to what is left. So, I guess that hope-y, change-y thing was all a big lie, then?

In the United States, "Redcoat" is associated with British soldiers who fought against the colonists during the American Revolution. It does not appear to have been a contemporary expression - accounts of the time usually refer to "Regulars" or "the King's men". Abusive nicknames included "bloody backs" (in a reference to both the colour of their coats and the use of flogging as a means of punishment for military offences) and "lobsters" (most notably in Boston around the time of the Boston Massacre).

It is not until the 1880s that the term "redcoat" as a common vernacular expression for the British soldier appears in literary sources, such as Kipling's poem "Tommy", indicating some degree of popular usage in Britain itself.[5]

[Danno 1,228]

Again we have more "selective outrage" from our far-left bud Steve.

Where was he when the Leftists were throwing bricks threw windows on old people or dropping sandbags down on traffic going to the 2008 Republican convention?

Gee, ya barely even recall the story huh?

Wonder why.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025942.php

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Again we have more "selective outrage" from our far-left bud Steve.

Where was he when the Leftists were throwing bricks threw windows on old people or dropping sandbags down on traffic going to the 2008 Republican convention?

Gee, ya barely even recall the story huh?

Wonder why.

http://www.powerline...0/03/025942.php

Believe it or not Danno, it is possible to condemn such actions by both sides. I do. What is not ok is pointing to wrong by one side and saying that somehow justifies wrong done by the other. I realize you are crippled by Danno Logic, but perhaps if it is explained to you enough, you will at least shut up about it, even if you never truly understand.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you are placing the policies of FDR as the new establishment, then it is you that be siding with the Brits, NHS and all. So, I guess we are switching sides, again, since you are claiming the right conservative position, and leaving the rest of us to what is left. So, I guess that hope-y, change-y thing was all a big lie, then?

Radicalism isn't confined to a specific political ideology, Bill. All this talk of Armageddon and Government takeover by Republican leaders over the passage of the HCR bill is not that different than the Radical Islamic Mullahs that fuel the flames of those who are willing to use violent means for political gain. If we can call them Radical Fundamentalists, we most certainly can call the domestic terrorists, Right Wing Radicals. It's just sad to see Americans like you being apologists and sympathizers to their intimidation and thuggery.

[Danno 1,228]

Believe it or not Danno, it is possible to condemn such actions by both sides. I do. What is not ok is pointing to wrong by one side and saying that somehow justifies wrong done by the other. I realize you are crippled by Danno Logic, but perhaps if it is explained to you enough, you will at least shut up about it, even if you never truly understand.

Ahh yea, I guess it "is: possible to condemn this action when both sides do it but why don't you?

Produce one topic posted by a VJ lefty at those incidents and I will stand corrected..... as it stands you are only dealing in the hypothetical..... that you "could" have condemned it when the left uses violence.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Radicalism isn't confined to a specific political ideology, Bill. All this talk of Armageddon and Government takeover by Republican leaders over the passage of the HCR bill is not that different than the Radical Islamic Mullahs that fuel the flames of those who are willing to use violent means for political gain. If we can call them Radical Fundamentalists, we most certainly can call the domestic terrorists, Right Wing Radicals. It's just sad to see Americans like you being apologists and sympathizers to their intimidation and thuggery.

So, you are comparing the outrage of a majority of American's over the process Congress and the President used to act against their will, to Terrorists that attacked us on 9-11? Reported!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I thought the thread title said Van Halen.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Ahh yea, I guess it "is: possible to condemn this action when both sides do it but why don't you?

Produce one topic posted by a VJ lefty at those incidents and I will stand corrected..... as it stands you are only dealing in the hypothetical..... that you "could" have condemned it when the left uses violence.

Since, by definition, I just did condemn such acts committed on behalf of the left, your question "but why don't you?" can't be answered. Why don't you use your brain and figure out I already did?

I am not responsible for statements made by mythical "VJ lefty" and ask you to do a search, produce one thread, where I advocated, supported, or in any way gave you so much as the impression I thought it was ever appropriate for anyone to threaten violence against George W. Bush or any other President?

I am not theoretically condemning violence committed by the radical left. I am condemning it Danno.

So, you are comparing the outrage of a majority of American's over the process Congress and the President used to act against their will, to Terrorists that attacked us on 9-11? Reported!

The Faux outrage? Pish pish and tosh tosh.

[Sofiyya 1,687]