Here's what's happening in our country, as told by a man who
understands the motivation behind the birthers, tea baggers and the
intimidation that Glenn Beck's loonies are inspired to inflict.


Rachel Maddow's first guest this evening was Frank Schaeffer. He is a
former right wing evangelical and the author of Crazy for God.

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?

Schaeffer: Yes I do. In fact this rings a big bell with me because my
dad who is a right wing evangelical leader wrote a book called "A
Christian Manifesto"...and in that book he compared anybody who was
pro-abortion to the nazi Germans; and he said that using violence or
force to overthrow nazi Germany would have been appropriate for
Christians including the assassination of Hitler. He compared the
Supreme Court's actions on abortion to that. And that has been a note
that has been following the right wing movement that my father and I
helped start...

So what's being said here is really two messages: there's the message
to the predominatly white, middle-aged crowds of people screaming at
these meetings trying to shut them down; but there's also a coded
message to what I would call the "looney tunes" - the fruitloops on
the side - that's really like playing Russian roulette. You put a
cartridge in the chamber and you spin and once in a while it goes off,
and we saw that with Dr. Tiller, we've seen it happen numerous times
in this country with the violence against political leaders whether
it's Martin Luther King or whoever it might be... we have a history of
being a well-armed violent country. And so, really, I think that these
calls are incredibly irresponsible.

The good news is is that it shows a desparation. The far right knows
they've lost. They've lost the hearts and minds of most American
people... But they also know that they have a large group of people
who are not well-informed, who listen to their own sources, who buy
the lies...and these people can be energized to go out and do really
dreadful things and we've seen it in front of abortion clinics - I'm
afraid we're going to see it with some of our political leaders. And
the Glenn Becks of this world literally are responsible for unleashing
what I regard as an anti-democratic, anti-american movement in this
country that is trying to shut down legitimate debate and replace it
with straight out intimidation.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:


Here's what's happening in our country, as told by a man who
understands the motivation behind the birthers, tea baggers and the
intimidation that Glenn Beck's loonies are inspired to inflict.


Rachel Maddow's first guest this evening was Frank Schaeffer. He is a
former right wing evangelical and the author of Crazy for God.
And you guys complain about Rush Limbaugh....

Jeeesy Pete!
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:11:47 -0400, wrote:

Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I call it politics as a blood sport. It doesn't bode well for the
future of democracy in my opinion. Reasonable people should be able
to disagree in a reasonable way. Since it is popular tradition to
find someone to blame, I wonder where this one starts?

wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?

Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.

Yes, Gene and I have been saying the same thing. I didn't like it (still
don't) when Harry is completely one sided on everything, and I don't
like it now that the conservatives of the group are doing the same exact
thing with Obama.

NotNow wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?

Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.

Yes, Gene and I have been saying the same thing. I didn't like it (still
don't) when Harry is completely one sided on everything, and I don't
like it now that the conservatives of the group are doing the same exact
thing with Obama.

If you see behavior you do not like, speak up. But, when you only speak
up when it is being performed by those whose views you are in opposition
with you are viewed as a hypocrite.

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:10:25 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?
Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.
Yes, Gene and I have been saying the same thing. I didn't like it (still
don't) when Harry is completely one sided on everything, and I don't
like it now that the conservatives of the group are doing the same exact
thing with Obama.

The amazing thing is that they can't see it! And even if they *do*
have an inkling.... its OK because *their* side is the *correct* side.

I can remember when these guys actually owned boats and used them.
Arguments erupted about stinkboaters vs. blowboaters, Bayliner sucks
vs. does not, and whether or not everybody should own and use a
sextant.

Now, look what they talk about.....
Yes, indeed!

BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:

Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?

Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.

I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.

Yes, Gene and I have been saying the same thing. I didn't like it
(still don't) when Harry is completely one sided on everything, and I
don't like it now that the conservatives of the group are doing the
same exact thing with Obama.

If you see behavior you do not like, speak up. But, when you only speak
up when it is being performed by those whose views you are in opposition
with you are viewed as a hypocrite.

You certainly aren't describing me. I speak up to Harry and his minion
all of the time.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:32:42 -0400, Gene
wrote:

That never happened, so, I must conclude that (1) I was wrong and they
are so incredibly stupid that they'll never catch on or (2) that they
are just like Harry, enjoy it as much as he does, and intend to keep
it going just so they'll have a life, too.

Strong possibility that it's 1 and 2.

Bayliners do suck however. :-)

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:19:17 -0400, NotNow wrote:

I speak up to Harry and his minions
all of the time.

I used to, but it became obvious, that to say *anything*, was
somewhere between pouring water on a duck's back and fanning the
flames.

Very true, that's why I got on the real newsreader bandwagon and with a
few plonks, life is good!

I always assumed that the *other* side would be smart enough to catch
on and "nip it in the bud;" sort of a one hand clapping scenario.

That never happened, so, I must conclude that (1) I was wrong and they
are so incredibly stupid that they'll never catch on or (2) that they
are just like Harry, enjoy it as much as he does, and intend to keep
it going just so they'll have a life, too.

What else could it be?

Perhaps both, my good man!

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:32:42 -0400, Gene
wrote:

That never happened, so, I must conclude that (1) I was wrong and they
are so incredibly stupid that they'll never catch on or (2) that they
are just like Harry, enjoy it as much as he does, and intend to keep
it going just so they'll have a life, too.

Strong possibility that it's 1 and 2.

Bayliners do suck however. :-)


As do cut out transoms.
And pirates.
And lobsta boats..........Okay, I'll stop!