Wisconsin Democrat To Republican Colleague: “You Are F***ing Dead”

Well this isn’t exactly new tone:

Last Friday…. after the Assembly voted to engross the Budget Repair Bill, [Wisconsin State Rep. Gordon] Hintz turned to a female colleague, Rep. Michelle Litjens and said: “You are F***king dead!”

I suppose this is acceptable because he was fighting for “the people,” right?

FILED UNDER: Doug Mataconis, Quick Picks, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. mantis says:

    I suppose this is acceptable because he was fighting for “the people,” right?

    Acceptable to whom?




    0



    0
  2. Alex Knapp says:

    I have to second Mantis. Was anyone defending this? Because it’s indefensible.




    0



    0
  3. I’m sure the same pundits on the left who vehemently denounced the Union protesters who compared Scott Walker to Hitler and Mubarak will be denouncing it post haste.

    Oh wait, there were no such pundits.




    0



    0
  4. Alex Knapp says:

    Doug,

    Are you implying that everyone who opines on matters political has an obligation to condemn every piece of over-the-top rhetoric in support of a policy matter they agree with? I’d argue now, and have argued in the past, that no such obligation exists.




    0



    0
  5. I’m merely pointing out the bipartisan hypocrisy of the whole “violent rhetoric” meme




    0



    0
  6. Alex Knapp says:

    What hypocrisy? Is anyone who condemned violent rhetoric on the right now defending it when it comes from the left?

    Is absence of condemntaiton evidence of approval now?




    0



    0
  7. mantis says:

    Doug has apparently noticed that “pundits” do not spend their time sitting around denouncing the over-the-top rhetoric of those they may agree with on policy. Quite a discovery, Doug.

    What do you have planned for your next post? How no one will disagree with a new mother that her baby is beautiful? How can they all be beautiful?! Someone needs to set these ugly baby mothers straight, and obviously their so-called “friends” aren’t willing to do it.




    0



    0
  8. I am simply waiting for one of the pundits on the left who spent the entire election campaign picking apart the. statements of Republican candidates for “violent rhetoric” and then blaming the right for the actions of a deranged man in Arizona to condemn something when it comes from their own side.

    I’m pretty sure I’ll be waiting awhile because the whole “violent rhetoric” meme is, I’ve learned, just a new way to condemn people you disagree with.




    0



    0
  9. “pundits” do not spend their time sitting around denouncing the over-the-top rhetoric of those they may agree with on policy.

    But they do spend a lot of time sitting around condemning rhetoric from their political opponents.

    Hence, it is hypocrisy




    0



    0
  10. FenrirIII says:

    Considering the first place I ever even heard of this is on an obvious right-winger’s blog, I am taking it with a grain of salt. Either way, no one is defending this statement as it is just wrong and in poor taste.




    0



    0
  11. kleven-stein says:

    It would be blatant hypocrisy if he had gotten on TV and shouted it, or intentionally deployed it on a web site.

    As for private conversations between individual states-people on the floor, I believe it was Dick Cheney’s FU on the floor of the US Senate that set the bar for acceptable language there,,,




    0



    0
  12. kleven-stein says:

    “What hypocrisy? Is anyone who condemned violent rhetoric on the right now defending it when it comes from the left?

    Is absence of condemntaiton evidence of approval now?”

    Your false equivalence is running rampant…




    0



    0
  13. mantis says:

    But they do spend a lot of time sitting around condemning rhetoric from their political opponents.

    Hence, it is hypocrisy

    And you apparently just noticed. Hence, my making fun of you.

    P.S. The sky is blue.




    0



    0
  14. Have A Nice G.A. says:

    Considering the first place I ever even heard of this is on an obvious right-winger’s blog, I am taking it with a grain of salt. Either way, no one is defending this statement as it is just wrong and in poor taste.

    lol….

    Poor taste….lol…..




    0



    0
  15. michael reynolds says:

    I’m happy to defend it.

    We don’t know the context. We don’t know the tone. We don’t know the relationship between these two.

    Depending on the answers to the above it could be anything from a joke to a threat to an inside reference to a comic call-back to hate speech.

    Right now we have no useful data and no basis for reaching a conclusion. Give me the context and I’ll tell you if it was indefensible.




    0



    0
  16. Smooth Jazz says:

    “Considering the first place I ever even heard of this is on an obvious right-winger’s blog, I am taking it with a grain of salt.”

    WTF??? You must not come here very much. This blog, and this blogger in particular, are as far left as they come; They just don’t have the vitriol of a Dem Underground or a FireDoglake. Just read the headlines of their blog posts on a typical day: Usually they are trashing a Repub (The Repub Congress and/or Gov Palin), flacking for Dems or pointing out how unbeatable Obama is, more than a year before a Repub candidate has won the nomination and made their case. Just hang around this blog for a few days and there will be no doubt this is NOT a right wingers blog. Note most of the commenters are far left zealots as well.




    0



    0
  17. Have A Nice G.A. says:

    I’m happy to defend it.

    We don’t know the context. We don’t know the tone. We don’t know the relationship between these two.

    Depending on the answers to the above it could be anything from a joke to a threat to an inside reference to a comic call-back to hate speech.

    Right now we have no useful data and no basis for reaching a conclusion. Give me the context and I’ll tell you if it was indefensible.

    A child. his parents, and grand parents walk into a TEA party…….




    0



    0
  18. jwest says:

    I’m so confused.

    Did Sarah Palin or George Bush make Hintz say what he did? Who’s reporting this anyway? Is it the “Good Doug” or the “Bad Doug”?

    I’m going to take an aspirin and lay down.




    0



    0
  19. mantis says:

    By the way, Doug, since you’ve been deputized to the hypocrisy police, tell us why you’re not getting on the cases of all those who insisted on video proof of every claim made about the Tea Partiers, but you give them a pass for repeating the claims of a right wing radio host with no proof. Oh wait, you take those claims as fact, yourself. Now I understand.

    You were saying something about hypocrisy?




    0



    0
  20. Steve Verdon says:

    Hintz busted in a prostitution sting.

    I’ll be curious to see if he is held accountable for his latest idiocy.

    What hypocrisy? Is anyone who condemned violent rhetoric on the right now defending it when it comes from the left?

    Is absence of condemntaiton evidence of approval now?

    I can’t tell you how many times the apparent answer to this, in general, is a resounding yes. People see someone stake out position X then infer that the person must also support Y, when in fact the person has already come out against Y and those condemning the person in question were just too stupid and/or lazy to do the search necessary to get the most accurate information.

    Now, the shoe is on the other foot and everyone runs around saying, “Oh, but that is so unreasonable.” I’m half tempted to go through the archives and see if mantis ever pulled this with me.




    0



    0
  21. Mike G says:

    “Are you implying that everyone who opines on matters political has an obligation to condemn every piece of over-the-top rhetoric in support of a policy matter they agree with? I’d argue now, and have argued in the past, that no such obligation exists.”

    Gee, then why did I spend the last decade having every word said by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin thrown at me by somebody online?




    0



    0
  22. mantis says:

    I’m half tempted to go through the archives and see if mantis ever pulled this with me.

    Have fun.




    0



    0
  23. mantis says:

    Gee, then why did I spend the last decade having every word said by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin thrown at me by somebody online?

    Probably because those people, along with a few others, lead the rightwing in this country. Who the hell is Gordon Hintz? Why must I condemn someone I’ve never heard of for possibly saying something offensive, when the only one making that claim is a rightwing radio host I’ve also never heard of?

    In any case, you’re under no obligation, as Alex said, to defend or condemn Rush, Glenn, or Sarah, regardless of what random people online have said (yes, I realize I am a random person online saying this).




    0



    0
  24. Well, in the long run we are all dead, f’ing or otherwise, according to Lord Keynes.




    0



    0
  25. Herb says:

    “I am simply waiting for one of the pundits on the left…”

    Do you have anyone specific in mind?

    If not, I’m pretty sure you’ll “be waiting awhile,” too.




    0



    0
  26. Alice Finkel says:

    I was once a leftist, until they passed a rule that all leftists must now be hateful hypocrites. Nothing more despicable than what the left has become.




    0



    0
  27. Wellington says:

    Heh. Reading the comments happily defending, semi-defending, blaming the right wing and otherwise squirming is way more entertaining than the post itself.




    0



    0
  28. Alex Knapp says:

    @Steve,

    Can’t we just take it for granted that if someone threatens violence, I disagree and condemn such action, without the nonsense of demanding a condemnation for every such action that may or may not have occurred?




    0



    0
  29. wr says:

    Welcome Alice. It’s been at least minutes since some random right winger claimed to have been a dedicated leftie until one of them said a mean word and forced her to abandon a lifetime’s worth of political belief.




    0



    0
  30. Has Everyone forgotten... says:

    …..Marius and Sulla? Or do we think we’re just immune from things like uncontrolled deficits, legislators that like democracy only when they win, and threatening the other side?

    I know leftists tend to be ahistorical, but the blatant disregard for due process and ordely government is approaching a dangerous point.

    What happens if the mass of people not getting pensions, angry at union abuses, and angry that their legislature is being paralyzed by absentees decide that they too, ought to be in the street? After all, voting seems to work only if one group wins: if the other side wins, one group flees the state.

    Its already at the point that government cannot include police or fire in budget cuts because then there’ll be no one to control union mobs. So we already have our own Praetorian Guard in each state now, that has to be financially appeased to maintain law and order.

    Now that the democrats have extended the boundaries of what is acceptable, will the GOP do the same (flee) if the Democrats win? And then what?

    Does the GOP have to retain guards to protect themselves against threats like the one this legislator made? And will democrats do the same? Then what?

    The left is killing democracy as we watch. They think its funny or just a game. Its not.




    0



    0
  31. Marcel says:

    Ease up on the guy. He’s a democrat. He’s doing it for the children.




    0



    0
  32. Anonymous says:

    It’s not “hate speech” or a felony “terroristic threat” when a leftliberal does it for power… er, “social justice,” apparently.




    0



    0
  33. jim says:

    It’s perfectly OK for a liberal or a Democrat to say something like that to a Republican or a conservative or anyone with whom he disagrees. It would NOT be alright the other way around. Remember that. It’ll avoid a lot of confusion.




    0



    0
  34. McGehee says:

    [Wisconsin State Rep. Gordon] Hintz turned to a female colleague, Rep. Michelle Litjens and said: “You are F***king dead!”

    Civility.




    0



    0
  35. Jim Hurley says:

    Isn’t it interesting how they pick on women, old people and minorities, people who they believe can’t fight back and in states where the 2nd amendment to the constitution is suppressed. They hide in the woodwork in the right to carry states. The first time one of these bozos took a punch at me he would be on his way to the hospital or worse.




    0



    0
  36. michael reynolds says:

    “Nice dick!” Spoken in a men’s room (at the DCCC of all places.)

    A clearly inappropriate remark, a crude come-on. Except it’s from my buddy, who is standing next to me at a urinal, and doing a call-back to a running gag between us.

    “If you guys don’t shut up I’m going to go on a killing spree!”

    Spoken by me, to my kids. A joke. Again, context, people.

    Context matters. It always does in speech or writing. I realize complexity is unwelcome, but we really do kind of need to know the context.




    0



    0
  37. sam says:

    Heh. This reminds me of the best line in Aliens.

    Gunnery Sgt: Alright, heads up, we gotta unload our weapons. Pass all the ammo to me.

    Marine Gunner: What’re we gonna use? Harsh Language?

    What is that guy said, oh yeah, “Politics ain’t beanbag.”




    0



    0
  38. Seven Tostadas says:

    I googled this guy’s name…h’es been in the news lately:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/wisconsin-state-rep-cited-for.html

    What a miscreant….maybe Wisconsin voters can bundle his re-call petition with the 14 Fleebaggers from the Senate.




    0



    0
  39. Seven Tostadas says:

    Obviously GW Bush, Sarah Palin, Scott Walker and Rush Limbauw have driven this poor decent man to desperation.




    0



    0
  40. Seven Tostadas says:

    Ummm….just looked at the photo again. He’s not Brad Pitt, but assuming one of the women in the photo is his wife..maybe he could be cut some slack on the the ‘happy ending’ thing….




    0



    0
  41. Polimom says:

    I’m thinkin’ maybe it’d be best to consider the source on this story. Politifact has had him as a confirmed “pants-on-fire” liar in the past. (Full story here)




    0



    0
  42. Steve Verdon says:

    Probably because those people, along with a few others, lead the rightwing in this country. Who the hell is Gordon Hintz? Why must I condemn someone I’ve never heard of for possibly saying something offensive, when the only one making that claim is a rightwing radio host I’ve also never heard of?

    So you aren’t going to condemn the statement, not even conditionally? Okay, got it.

    Context matters. It always does in speech or writing. I realize complexity is unwelcome, but we really do kind of need to know the context.

    I agree, but at this point I don’t think the context is going to help. It might, I’m just skeptical it will. After all, the story has been out there for awhile and if the context is it is a jest between two friendly colleagues then why hasn’t Rep. Michelle Litjens come forward yet? Maybe she will, but as more and more time goes buy it looks worse and worse for Hintz.

    Can’t we just take it for granted that if someone threatens violence, I disagree and condemn such action, without the nonsense of demanding a condemnation for every such action that may or may not have occurred?

    Regarding you Alex, sure. However, see mantis’ comments in this thread…he has proven Doug right.




    0



    0
  43. Steve Verdon says:
  44. mantis says:

    So you aren’t going to condemn the statement, not even conditionally?

    That’s not what I said. I asked why I should be expected to condemn things possibly said by someone I’ve never heard of, based on the claim of someone else I’ve never heard of. Are you going to answer that question?

    However, see mantis’ comments in this thread…he has proven Doug right.

    How, exactly?




    0



    0
  45. Steve Verdon says:

    That’s not what I said. I asked why I should be expected to condemn things possibly said by someone I’ve never heard of, based on the claim of someone else I’ve never heard of. Are you going to answer that question?

    The implication is you are not going to condemn something indefensible that someone says if they are not “well known” enough. You’d condemn it if somebody like Krugman went off the rails, but not some low grade state level representative.

    How, exactly?

    I just explained it. I’ll also note that you have yet to condemn the statement. It has been pointed out to you. The person who made the statement has apologized. It doesn’t appear to be a context issue. I think the reason Doug doesn’t have to post anymore are all your comments up to now in this thread.

    HTH, HAND.




    0



    0
  46. Lynn says:

    Litjens said she did not believe Hintz’ comments were meant for her personally. Rather, the comment was directed at the Republican Party as a whole for moving ahead on the governor’s bill.




    0



    0
  47. mantis says:

    The implication is you are not going to condemn something indefensible that someone says if they are not “well known” enough.

    Actually, the implication is that I don’t understand why I should be expected to seek out every indefensible thing that people I’ve never heard of claim other people I’ve never heard of say. Am I supposed to monitor every right wing radio show and every right wing blog in the country hoping to hear someone claim some lefty said something they didn’t like, just so I can condemn it? And if I don’t, then it’s a tacit endorsement?

    You’d condemn it if somebody like Krugman went off the rails, but not some low grade state level representative.

    If Krugman, whom I’m familiar with, wrote something similarly indefensible in his column, I might have reason to condemn it because a) I know who Krugman is and might actually read what was written, and b) I know he wrote it, because it’s in his column.

    In this case, someone I’ve never heard of claims a Wisconsin state rep I’ve never heard of said something to another rep. That’s supposed to be on my radar enough to care and condemn it? Why?

    I’ll also note that you have yet to condemn the statement.

    Ok fine, I condemn it. Why does it matter to you whether some random commenter you don’t know condemn’s something someone else said?

    The person who made the statement has apologized.

    I hadn’t heard that until I read your comment.

    I think the reason Doug doesn’t have to post anymore are all your comments up to now in this thread.

    Huh?




    0



    0
  48. geek49203 says:

    Wisconsin State Rep. Gordon Hintz (D) was arrested Feb. 10, accused of sexual misconduct — a violation of a City of Appleton ordinance. The charge comes in connection with a massage parlor investigation. The 37-year-old lawmaker says he is willing to take responsibility for his actions after the citation came to light, according to a report by the Chicago Tribune. Hintz e-mailed a statement to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, in which he writes “I am willing to take responsibility for my actions,” but going on to say that his “personal situation is distracting from the much more important issue facing the state.”

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/wisconsin-state-rep-cited-for.html

    22 Feb 2011

    I think that the good Rep has a handle on getting F****d?




    0



    0
  49. Quaestor says:

    @ Alex Knapp

    There is an ancient legal principle, “qui tacet consentire videtur.” Silence gives consent.




    0



    0
  50. PTL says:

    Couldn’t she just get an order of protection? Report to the police and get an arrest
    warrant?




    0



    0
  51. Ten says:

    Your false equivalence is running rampant…

    Indeed. Mantis has a lot of misdirection racing around the thread, doesn’t s/he? My favorite is the bit of sophistry that criticizes the mere observation that leftism engages in opportunism and false moralities … when not championing their unique religion of a benevolent and ostensibly wholly secular nanny State at every turn, of course. To wit:

    Doug has apparently noticed that “pundits” do not spend their time sitting around denouncing the over-the-top rhetoric of those they may agree with on policy. Quite a discovery, Doug.

    In other words, pronouncements are based not on principle but on bias. Quite the admission from our friend mantis.

    How dare you observe what is already so observed, winger? And: Defend yourself, ye unwashed!




    0



    0
  52. mantis says:

    In other words, pronouncements are based not on principle but on bias.

    From pundits, yes! Are you just noticing this as well?

    Quite the admission from our friend mantis.

    I also said the sky is blue. Did I let the cat out of the bag on that one as well?




    0



    0
  53. Ten says:

    That’s cute and all, mantis, and reinforces your reputation as a sophist. Well done, sir!




    0



    0
  54. mantis says:

    Ok, you’ve got in your required usage of the word sophistry. What will your word-a-day calendar teach you tomorrow?




    0



    0
  55. Hi Libs says:

    Nothing I love more than watching pinko libtards twist themselves into knots trying to justify the indefensible. Reminds me of the quality journalism at the NYT back in the late 1930’s.

    😀




    0



    0
  56. Ten says:

    What will your word-a-day calendar teach you tomorrow?

    Racing goalposts? Situational ethics? Not knowing when to shut up?

    I know: How about conceding without really conceding?

    Accepted.




    0



    0
  57. mantis says:

    Concede? Were we having a debate? I thought you were just dancing around congratulating yourself for being the smartest person in your basement.




    0



    0
  58. Ten says:

    Remember the left’s rules, folks:

    1. National narratives to smear conservatives? Ok!

    2. Evidence? Unnecessary!

    3. Never having to say you’re sorry (unless it’s politically expedient)? Ok, fine!

    3. Having the temerity to, as our host did, observe such terms and conditions? Nope! Not needed!

    4. Not understanding where mantis installed the threshold for who gets condemned? And why? When and how? INTOLERABLE, YOU WINGERZ!




    0



    0
  59. TallDave says:

    So, using my MSM/Democrat decoder ring, I think I can translate what just happened here:

    Gordon Hintz just got Gabrielle Giffords shot.

    Oh, wait, sorry, no, I had it set wrong. That would be what happened if Hintz were a Republican. These darn rings and their tricky settings! Here, I think I’ve got it now:

    Nothing noteworthy happened at all.

    There, that looks right.




    0



    0
  60. Ten says:

    I thought you were just dancing around congratulating yourself for being the smartest person in your basement.

    Heh. All true except that part where you didn’t, actually.




    0



    0
  61. Alex Knapp says:

    @Ten,

    1. National narratives to smear conservatives? Ok!

    Who, in this thread, or even generally, said that this was acceptable?

    2. Evidence? Unnecessary!

    Who claimed this?

    3. Never having to say you’re sorry (unless it’s politically expedient)? Ok, fine!

    Who claimed this?

    3. Having the temerity to, as our host did, observe such terms and conditions? Nope! Not needed!

    Well, the issue we had with Doug is that he is stating that everyone on the left has some sort of obligation to condemn this statement. I question whether anyone has to condemn any statement anyone makes that’s not their own. So did several other people on this thread. So I’m not sure how you get from here to there.

    4. Not understanding where mantis installed the threshold for who gets condemned? And why? When and how? INTOLERABLE, YOU WINGERZ!

    I thought mantis’ threshold was pretty clear. If he comes across it, he’ll condemn it. If he’s never heard of it, he doesn’t think he has an oblgiation to.

    Are you now claiming that he has an obligation to condemn statements that he doesn’t know exist?

    I’m afraid that your “rules” are a bit muddled, and would appreciate it if you could clear them up.




    0



    0
  62. J says:

    LOL. “I didn’t know we were playing for real.” Haven’t heard that one since 3rd grade, Mantis.




    0



    0
  63. Alex Knapp says:

    Quaestor,

    @ Alex Knapp

    There is an ancient legal principle, “qui tacet consentire videtur.” Silence gives consent.

    I refer you to my all-purpose condemnation:

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an-official-statement-concerning-violence-threats-of-violence-comparisons-to-hitler-etc/

    @Talldave,

    Who made the claim that Hintz’s statements were not noteworthy? Citation, please.

    @Hi Libs,

    Please state who defended Hintz’s statement. Citations welcome.




    0



    0
  64. Ten says:

    Alex Knapp says:
    Monday, February 28, 2011 at 17:16

    Er, wrong on your first three assumptions, mantis Alex Knapp. It’s not up to either the site host or anyone in this sorry thread to do so much as observe that variable ethics are de rigueur on the left!

    Evidence? No condemnation from the left of said death threat, it, according to most recent in-thread flailing about aimed at diverting attention from the perp and onto the victims, quite unneeded when said miscreant falls below a certain arbitrary threshold.

    Say, a State Representative.

    See how that works? Players and scorecards, goes the new left-narrative. Tada! No more accountability. Threaten away, public servant!

    the issue we had with Doug is that he is stating that everyone on the left has some sort of obligation to condemn this statement.

    The issue you apparently have with Doug is that he is implying, I think, that everyone on the left indeed does have some sort of obligation to condemn its bewildering array of untruths, they in defense of a failing system of thought and policy that simply can no longer be defended. Such as mantis asserting that Doug is somehow to blame for noting such a condition.

    You guys should tag-team more often.




    0



    0
  65. Alex Knapp says:

    Ten,

    Er, wrong on your first three assumptions, mantis Alex Knapp. It’s not up to either the site host or anyone in this sorry thread to do so much as observe that variable ethics are de rigueur on the left!

    Citation Needed.

    Evidence? No condemnation from the left of said death threat

    I condemned it. Mantis condemned it. As did others.

    But again, are you stating that every time someone on the left says or does something unethical, everyone on the left has to condemn it? And every time someone on the right does something unethical, that everyone on the right has to condemn it?

    I would argue that that standard is absurd.

    most recent in-thread flailing about aimed at diverting attention from the perp and onto the victims

    [citation needed]

    quite unneeded when said miscreant falls below a certain arbitrary threshold.

    Say, a State Representative.

    You’re misinterpreting what mantis said. What he questions was his need to condemn an action that he hadn’t heard of, in a state he didn’t live in, by a state representative that he was unfamiliar with.

    Are you familiar with the statements of every state representative on the right? Do you regularly condemn their unethical conduct? Of course not. That’s a nonsense burden.

    Again, please note that once he was made aware of this statement, mantis condemned it.

    The rest of your statements are nonsensical. Do you expect someone on the left to condemn the left in toto? That’s ridiculous.

    Moreover, the division between right and left is, generally speaking, ridiculous. As Americans, there is broad agreement across the spectrum on a number of political principles. Rather than bandying insults, we should find common ground and not hold each other to stupid, arbitrary standards. Where can we find compromise? What can we learn from each other? That’s what we should focus on. Not inane point-scoring.




    0



    0
  66. Ten says:

    I condemned it. Mantis condemned it. As did others.

    You were dragged, kicking and screaming, at one point even having the temerity to demand that Doug tacitly apologize for having the gall to, as you put it, nearly

    claiming that [mantis] has an obligation to condemn statements that he doesn’t know exist

    And then begging off with the equally asinine

    I’m afraid that your “rules” are a bit muddled, and would appreciate it if you could clear them up.

    Muddled? What’s muddled is your subsequent demand, Alex Knapp, which is that anyone expected anyone else to act preemptively in the face of as-yet unknown future misdeeds as this Democrat Representative fool’s.

    That’s the height of fallacy, Alex Knapp. You know, this claptrap

    What he questions was his need to condemn an action that he hadn’t heard of, in a state he didn’t live in, by a state representative that he was unfamiliar with.

    Not buying it. The observation that the left’s narrative promotes Sarah Palin as a proponent of assassination attempts is valid. The observation that the left’s narrative promotes Democrat politicians as immune to such criticism – when they actually act out their rages and make such pronouncements – is equally valid.

    For the fifth time or thereabouts: Nobody expects you do the impossible, which is to preemptively apologize for words, events, and deeds you couldn’t have known about.

    I do think it’s entirely rational that the left, on the other hand, die by the same rules they’d crucify the right by. Citation needed, of course, you master logician and goalpost racer you.




    0



    0
  67. Ten says:

    Moreover, the division between right and left is, generally speaking, ridiculous. As Americans, there is broad agreement across the spectrum on a number of political principles. Rather than bandying insults, we should find common ground and not hold each other to stupid, arbitrary standards. Where can we find compromise? What can we learn from each other? That’s what we should focus on. Not inane point-scoring.

    Bullshit. The division between liberty in a classically liberal ideology and what passes for “progressive liberalism” is the division between liberty and serfdom, whether physical, economic, cultural, intellectual, or spiritual. The left has failed.

    The modern left is today what it once thought it condemned – a nearly wholly dysfunctional establishment; a fraud on reason and truth. Whenever it can and by whatever means (see this thread), it champions that familiar rubbish about equality, civility, and tolerance when clearly it values none of those ideals whatsoever.

    The left had a good half century. It failed about as miserably as any effort on behalf of collectivism could have failed. What urgently remains is the fate of the West and its genuine liberalism. We’re out of pulls at the handle.




    0



    0
  68. Steve Verdon says:

    I thought mantis’ threshold was pretty clear. If he comes across it, he’ll condemn it.

    Sorry Alex, mantis fails this test. It was called out but it took what…5, 6 posts before he condemned it after I noted he was implying he was unwilling too. mantis makes Doug’s point. You’ve seen it here in comment threads numerous times. Oh, you haven’t condemned this therefore you must support….often times based on supporting (or condemning) something else entirely. Hell go to Doug’s chart of the day we are doomed post and you can see it being done to Dave Schuler! And IIRC you called out that commenter wr was wrong in his assumptions. And too be clear this is not a partisan position, but something everyone has a natural tendency to do I think.

    Are you now claiming that he has an obligation to condemn statements that he doesn’t know exist?

    What is the big deal here, you have. With that post you given a blanket condemnation to quotes that satisfy a certain criteria presumably that covers both ones you know about and ones you don’t since it is blanket.




    0



    0
  69. Steve Verdon says:

    And to be clear Alex, I agree with your all purpose condemnation post. Well except for the apple pie bit, I like it, but prefer several other pies over apple.




    0



    0
  70. An Interested Party says:

    This blog, and this blogger in particular, are as far left as they come…

    Psst, disliking Sarah Palin does not make one part of the “far left”…




    0



    0
  71. Steve Verdon says:

    Psst, disliking Sarah Palin does not make one part of the “far left”…

    I know tell me about it. And being in favor of a market economy doesn’t make one a Republican winger either….not that will stop anyone from calling me either a Leftist or Rightie somewhere down the road.




    0



    0
  72. mantis says:

    Sorry Alex, mantis fails this test. It was called out but it took what…5, 6 posts before he condemned it after I noted he was implying he was unwilling too.

    I was questioning the demand that I condemn it. You still haven’t even attempted to answer. And yes, I capitulated to that demand, though I had made absolutely no defense for this idiot Wisconsin rep., if only so you could move past it. Obviously, you have not, and are still stuck on the condemnation from a random anonymous commenter on the web. I’m just a bug, man. I’m nothing.

    My point was Doug was calling out “the pundits on the left” for not condemning fast enough what at that point was a claim only made by a talk radio host, and it’s a rather old and obvious truth that “pundits” of either side rarely seek out and lambast those they normally agree with for saying something inappropriate. That’s how partisans work.

    I, however, am not a pundit. I’m just a bug. Who demands pronouncements of condemnation from bugs?




    0



    0
  73. mantis says:

    Do you expect someone on the left to condemn the left in toto? That’s ridiculous.

    You noticed that too, eh? Not only must you apologize for this man, but for ruining America with your leftism!

    I’m reminded of the Kids in the Hall sketch where Bruce McCulloch has to apologize for causing “all that cancer.”




    0



    0
  74. Steve Verdon says:

    Do you expect someone on the left to condemn the left in toto? That’s ridiculous.

    You noticed that too, eh? Not only must you apologize for this man, but for ruining America with your leftism!

    Didn’t you condemn the entire Tea Party as violent psychotics full of rage? I suppose it is different since you aren’t a member of the Tea Party.




    0



    0
  75. mantis says:

    Didn’t you condemn the entire Tea Party as violent psychotics full of rage?

    No. Nice try though.




    0



    0
  76. Ten says:

    I’m just a bug, man. I’m nothing…. I’m just a bug. Who demands pronouncements of condemnation from bugs?

    And who would ever demand bloggers refuse to think and write because of such a bug’s exclusive, secretive standards?




    0



    0
  77. Have A Nice G.A. says:

    Didn’t you condemn the entire Tea Party as violent psychotics full of rage?

    lol, somebody’s doing it….because I have seen that mad crazy donkey poop scribbled here like a million times!!!!

    Harry? wr?




    0



    0
  78. Ben Wolf says:

    G.A.,

    The condemnation of the Tea Party in toto comes from me, not Mantis. They are, in fact, the biggest douches in the universe. And a lot of them are really ugly too.

    In addition I, as King of the Left hereby immunize all my leftist underlings from the need to condemn the actions and statements of their fellow leftist underlings and authorize the use of all mad uber soshulist skills to defeat the god-fearing liberty lovers on the Right.

    Only then can we stop Steve Verdon and Ten, the superheros of the Reagan League who have seen through our evil plan to . . . not know who the F***k Gordon Hintz is.

    That is all.




    0



    0
  79. bandit says:

    Give him a break. He’s a Dem and doesn’t know any better than to threaten a girl. But she’s probably more than he could handle.




    0



    0
  80. Steve Verdon says:

    mantis wrote:
    The Tea Party did the attacking. They’re violent psychotics.

    […]

    That’s the Tea Party for you. Violent rage = good. Tolerance = Evil.

    I’m trying to see a contextual defense in those two comments of yours, but I don’t see it. Maybe you can point it out for the rest of us? Because right now it looks like you pretty much made blanket statements about the Tea Party.




    0



    0
  81. Paul Hedges says:

    The Wis Dems have been given authority by the people to speak in their Legislative Hall. Why flee their post? If they believe in the power of ideas and the intelligence of their people, why not stand and make their case? They have a seat in the most hallowed chamber in their state! Nobody can stop them from speaking out on behalf of their values and to their constituents. Do they fear they have inferior ideas? Or are they playing a different game as one of many national dominoes they want to push over?




    0



    0
  82. mantis says:

    I’m trying to see a contextual defense in those two comments of yours, but I don’t see it.

    Then you’re not trying.

    Because right now it looks like you pretty much made blanket statements about the Tea Party.

    In the first, I was talking about one specific Tea Party, in San Diego, which led by their candidate who lost the election, formed violent mob to attack the winning candidate. Those Tea Partiers were certainly violent psychotics. You probably missed that detail in your search for context.

    In the second, I was drawing a reasonable conclusion from what Jay Tea, who labels himself a member and supporter of the Tea Party, wrote about tolerance being the cause of death. I suppose the way I phrased it was a bit broad, sure.

    So your point, as far as I can tell, is that by taking what Tea Partiers say and do and ascribing those actions or beliefs to all Tea Partiers (whether I did that or not), I’m demanding that everyone on the right constantly apologize for every bad thing that has ever happened, as Ten expects everyone on the left to do? Sorry, but that’s horseshit and you know it.




    0



    0
  83. mantis says:

    And who would ever demand bloggers refuse to think and write because of such a bug’s exclusive, secretive standards?

    Not me. I make no demands of bloggers. They can think and write whatever the hell they please.

    Got any other straw men?




    0



    0