Article

2009-09-30 Home Front: Politix

Baby Kennedy warns health-care debate could turn violent

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2009-09-30 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Chinese Proverb:

"Wealth does not pass three generations."

Not violent and your family is living proof.

Posted by badanov 2009-09-30 00:28|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-09-30 00:28|| Front Page Top

#2 The best protection for public officials is to be responsive to their constituents.

Posted by DoDo 2009-09-30 00:42|| 2009-09-30 00:42|| Front Page Top

#3 Plan on assaulting someone Patrick?

Posted by ed 2009-09-30 01:19|| 2009-09-30 01:19|| Front Page Top

#4 Last I checked, we are still allowed to say 'fire' in a theater that is on fire.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-09-30 01:29|| 2009-09-30 01:29|| Front Page Top

#5 "Bury ObamaCare with Kennedy.

I suppose it would have been more palatable for the Kennedy Klan if the protesters had slogans that said, "Bury ObamaCare with Mary J. Kopechne".

Posted by Jumbo Slinerong5015 2009-09-30 04:49|| 2009-09-30 04:49|| Front Page Top

#6 You guys just make my morning.

heh

Posted by newc">newc 2009-09-30 05:59|| 2009-09-30 05:59|| Front Page Top

#7 "It's a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric and attack people personally"

However, union goons beating up people is okay.

Posted by Pappy 2009-09-30 08:43|| 2009-09-30 08:43|| Front Page Top

#8 " It's a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric and attack people personally,"

Unless of course we happen to have empirical proof that you're just a worthless, drunken, drug-sodden s#1tbag...

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2009-09-30 09:16|| 2009-09-30 09:16|| Front Page Top

#9 Can we pass a law to keep the kennedys from ever speaking or reproducing ever again? Once waste of skin after another stealing my oxygen.

Posted by DarthVader 2009-09-30 09:21|| 2009-09-30 09:21|| Front Page Top

#10 well based off of historical trends, if anyone needs quick direct access to healthcare it's certainly the kennedy clan...

Posted by Broadhead6 2009-09-30 10:01|| 2009-09-30 10:01|| Front Page Top

#11 It's almost as if some people are...Bitter.

Posted by DepotGuy 2009-09-30 10:35|| 2009-09-30 10:35|| Front Page Top

#12 " It's a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric and attack people personally,"

What a clever way to kill the First Amendment.

Posted by Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-09-30 12:11|| 2009-09-30 12:11|| Front Page Top

#13 "It's a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric and attack people personally"

When you start listening, people will back off because they will only go as far as they deem necessary to get their point across. The fact that they go as far as they do reflects more about you than it does about human nature.

Posted by gorb 2009-09-30 12:17|| 2009-09-30 12:17|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm way behind on the news. I didn't realize Patches had been released from his latest stint with rehab (stress due to father's illness, etc.)

Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-09-30 12:39|| 2009-09-30 12:39|| Front Page Top

#15 "Teddy's dead."

Yup. Thats the point. imagine "Bury X policy with Reagan" in the days after Reagans death. Rudeness either way.

" The mawk pushers demanded that the healthcare fiasco be named after him."

The propagandistic naming of bills has been going on for years, by both parties, and is a bad idea. Really, as if anyone who disagrees with a particular set of post 9/11 security policies isnt a patriot? Id say thats worse than mawkish.

"The healthcare fiasco is now dead. "

The fiasco whatever you mean by that may be dead, but its still a pretty good bet that a bill including payorplay, individual mandates, close to universal coverage, etc will become law. Probably without a public option, but possibly with a trigger for a public option.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-30 13:04|| 2009-09-30 13:04|| Front Page Top

#16 My family's seen it up close too much with assassinations and violence in political life.
... he said, waving the bloody shirt...

excepts its 100% true. They HAVE seen it up close.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-30 13:05|| 2009-09-30 13:05|| Front Page Top

#17 "That sorta name calling never happened before Chimpy McBushitler..."

That sort of thing from the michael moore set was disgusting. I said so repeatedly. That many mainstream Dems refused to distance themselves from it was a shame on them. And, I think, it hurt Kerry in 2004.

You can choose to be different, to be the GOP equivalent of the Leiberman Dems. Or you can choose to be the GOP equivalent of Michael Moore. Your choice. But be warned, it doesnt win votes from the center.

And yes, it harms the country we all claim to love.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-30 13:07|| 2009-09-30 13:07|| Front Page Top

#18 "Jefferson, Andy Jackson, and Lincoln was even more rancid than anything being dished up by the Dems today... "

What.The. Fuck.

You ARE aware that Lincoln was killed by an assasin's bullet, arent you?

This site sometimes follows Israeli affairs.

In Israel there was wild demonization of a PM in the early 90s. His name was Yitzah Rabin. You might recall what happened to him.

One can muddle through. One can have horrid demonization without assasinations. one can have it with assasinations, and the polity can be largely unaffected. You can have assasinations, and the polity is poisoned in subtle ways. Or, you can have democracy fall. Theres NO guarantees which way it will go, once you head down that road.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-30 13:12|| 2009-09-30 13:12|| Front Page Top

#19 LH, I think Fred knows his history.

Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln were indeed vilified, during and after office, in ways that people today just wouldn't tolerate. I think that was his point. We managed to 'muddle through', though (as you point out) there was no guarantee that we would.

What Patrick and the hard left want to do is to close off debate. They've tried several ways to get that done lately. Recently those who disagreed with them were 'racists'. Now they are encouraging violence (the Left loves that one; Limbaugh has been encouraging violence all his life apparently). The whole point is to make whole areas of debate off limits so as to freeze the political position in their favor.

Orwell understood this better than anyone.

Posted by Steve White 2009-09-30 13:17|| 2009-09-30 13:17|| Front Page Top

#20 And who killed the Kennedys?
Lee Harvey Oswald: A communist defector to the Soviet Union
Sirhan Sirhan: A racist, anti-Jewish Arab inculcated as a child in the kill the Jews and their supporters ideology.

Guess what,? None of those groups are protesting Obama's and Dems cronyzation of 15% of the US economy. Matter of fact, at least one of those groups, and maybe both, are violently in support of Patrick Kennedy's position.

Posted by ed 2009-09-30 13:37|| 2009-09-30 13:37|| Front Page Top

#21 "And who killed the Kennedys?"

-Ed, I thought it was you & me? (hat tip Mick & Keith)

Posted by Broadhead6 2009-09-30 14:22|| 2009-09-30 14:22|| Front Page Top

#22 The only violence I've heard about in connection with the health care debate has been instigated by union goons. We've seen videos of goony donk enforcers pushing non-violent citizens out of town hall meetings for having the temerity to disagree. That's been about the size of it. That massive demonstration they had in DC against ObamaCare was strictly non-violent and well mannered. Some of the signs were indicative of a robust debate but, hey, that's democracy.

Don't like it? Try China or Russia. Try Iran.

I suspect the Nancy Pelosis and Patrick Kennedys of the world would love it if there really was some good, old fashioned rioting so they could play the victim and then crack down in police state fashion. It's a comfortable, familiar role for them and they play it so very well. Always with the compassion, they are. Always the sob story. But it isn't gonna work this time. If they want violence they're gonna have to start it themselves and they may not like the result.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-09-30 14:26|| 2009-09-30 14:26|| Front Page Top

#23 "LH, I think Fred knows his history."

I know, thats whats so weird.

"Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln were indeed vilified, during and after office, in ways that people today just wouldn't tolerate. I think that was his point. We managed to 'muddle through', though (as you point out) there was no guarantee that we would."

We had a civil war in 1860, we almost had secession during the war of 1812. I think our goal is better than muddling through. This sites focus is, you know, the WOT. We could lose 100,000 to an AQ nuke (far less than the losses during the Civil war) and we could "muddle through".

"What Patrick and the hard left want to do is to close off debate. They've tried several ways to get that done lately. Recently those who disagreed with them were 'racists'. Now they are encouraging violence (the Left loves that one; Limbaugh has been encouraging violence all his life apparently). The whole point is to make whole areas of debate off limits so as to freeze the political position in their favor."

On the contrary, they are just engaging in free speech themselves. They are no more cutting off speech than when folks here call out idiocies on the real hard left. I mean ANSWER and so on.

As for Orwell, he didnt mean what you seem to think he means. Indeed, Orwell was very negative about just the kind of ideological rigidity, code words substituting for thought, etc that passes for argument among many of you.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-30 15:02|| 2009-09-30 15:02|| Front Page Top

#24 Violence IS a rational response to this. After all health is 99.5% personal, rather than collective.

The government is going to fund this by increasing the level of violence (taxation is after all extorted).

Why not reciprocate? After all the alternative is to allow the state claim ownership of your body.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2009-09-30 16:26|| 2009-09-30 16:26|| Front Page Top

#25 OK, LH. Patty can say whatever he wants but I can tell him to keep his frickin' grimy paws off of me and my doctor. How's that?

Oh, and I can make fun of him for being a worthless drunk and a bum just like his dad too.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-09-30 16:29|| 2009-09-30 16:29|| Front Page Top

#26 The Brit is correct. This greatly effect the most basic need of every person. Their health. It would seem to me that on an issue this personal and critical, violence would not be unexpected.

If the left can state that religious terrorism is a response to the wests actions and should be addressed by the west not taking action, surely they must also think that not taking action on healthcare reform would stop any violence taken in opposition to it.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-09-30 18:24|| 2009-09-30 18:24|| Front Page Top

23:58 Skunky Glins****
23:52 trailing wife
23:51 trailing wife
23:49 newc
23:48 trailing wife
23:47 newc
23:44 newc
23:42 newc
23:37 crazyhorse
23:36 Cornsilk Blondie
23:31 Woozle Uneter9007
23:31 gorb
23:27 trailing wife
23:26 Woozle Uneter9007
23:24 3dc
23:23 Barbara Skolaut
23:21 trailing wife
23:21 mom
23:19 trailing wife
23:18 gorb
23:18 Besoeker in Duitsland
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
22:54 borgboy
22:45 KBK