<< Violence, Media, and the President | Main | Open Season >>


Barack Obama, Gun Control Demagogue

| 24 Comments
Gun control rouses considerable passion, to say the least  It's also a complicated subject, because it involves a mix of mind-numbing horror (e.g.,the Sandy Hook child massacre and the Aurora shootings), the difficulties in a free society of preemptively institutionalizing possibly quite dangerous people, and the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, a right intimately linked to the right of self defense.  There's also the more "routine" fact that almost all murder is committed with guns.

So I don't blame people for being emotional about it.  I do, however, blame the President of the United States for being a shameless, huckstering demagogue.  He's pushing several gun control proposals in Congress.  There is a great deal of controversy about them by people of good faith, many who support some elements but would change or supplant others, and some who might be ready to support most of them, but are nervous about what they fear may be the President's broader gun agenda.  

The problem is that Obama, insultingly and falsely, implies that his opponents, simply by virtue of their opposition, have "forgotten" the Sandy Hook victims, are insincere and not "serious," or are just politically craven.  Watch the tape here.

For a man who so often calls for "civility," this bullhorn impugning of the other side's motives and basic humanity is appalling.  And from the President of the United States, it's worse than appalling.  It's dangerous.

24 Comments

Decency evolves:

Oh the incivility of our President. If only he was temperate, like a certain mild mannered Fox News commentator I could name:

Mike Huckabee: Obama May Be Planning To Grab Guns And Launch A Nazi-Like Dictatorship
By Aviva Shen on Apr 3, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Republican lawmakers are refusing to support universal background checks, the cornerstone of the Senate’s gun violence prevention package, for fear that the measure will lead to a national gun registry the government will use to confiscate guns from legal gun owners. On his Wednesday radio show, former Arkansas governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee fanned the flames of the confiscation conspiracy, suggesting gun regulation is a ruse to enact a dictatorship akin to Nazi Germany. Media Matters flagged the exchange:
CALLER: I’m very concerned, it seems like there’s so many people who have not read and do not understand how quickly Germany was turned into, it was a democracy, then turned into a dictatorship by everyone having to register their guns and then they went door to door and collected them.
HUCKABEE: People do forget that. And by the way, [caller] know, that when you bring that up you get people who get crazy on us, and they’ll start saying, “Oh there you go comparing to the Nazis.” And I understand the reaction, but it’s the truth. You cannot take people’s rights away if they’re resisting and if they have the means to resist, but once they’re disarmed and the people who are trying to take over have all the power, not just political, not just financial, but they have the physical power to domesticate us and to subjugate us to our will there’s not a whole lot we can do about it other than just plan to die in the course of resistance. It’s very true [caller], and I appreciate you bringing it up. I know that people are probably calling and saying you know you shouldn’t have brought that up. In every society and culture where dictators take over, one of the things they have to do is get control of the military and the police and ultimately all of the citizens and make sure the citizens are disarmed and can’t fight in the streets. Gosh I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Since calls for stricter gun regulation have increased after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the gun lobby has deployed the Nazi comparison frequently. However, under Nazi rule, gun laws were actually relaxed. While Jews were banned from owning any weapons, the legal age to own a gun was lowered, while rifle and shotgun possession was deregulated. Experts say gun policy had little effect on Nazi power either way.
Even with no evidence to back up the confiscation conspiracy, gun advocates and Republican lawmakers have embraced rhetoric comparing President Obama to Hitler and Stalin. Meanwhile, 92 percent of the public supports mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, including overwhelming majorities of gun owners and NRA members.

Your comment is remarkable for several reasons:

1. You changed the subject in what must be record time. Congratulations!

2. Not only did you change it, you managed to avoid writing A SINGLE WORD about the post, which concerned Obama's false and insulting attribution of callousness to those with the temerity to disagree with The One.

3. Do you find it at all ironic that a person who calls himself "Decencyevolves" has zero to say about McCarthyite tactics employed in public debate?

4. Is Obama's ad hominem, dishonest and condescending speech something you'd like Republicans to emulate? Yes or no.

5. I can't really find the right words to express my, uh, reaction to someone who apparently thinks the attitude and tactics of the ex-Governor of the 32nd most populous state are aptly compared to the attitude and tactics of the sitting President of the United States.

6. Do you really think, as Obama sniffs, that those who don't want to enact HIS PARTICULAR mix of gun legislation have that view because they've "forgotten" the children slaughtered at Sandy Hook? Is that what you think?

7. If Obama's speech isn't demagoguery, could you tell me what definition of that word you're using?

Decency evolves: why us it McCathyism to argue for adopting reforms that huge majorities of The American public embrace? What makes you think that the arguments against some of the mildest restrictions imaginable on the possession and ownership of murderous weapons are made in good faith or reasonable? What are here reasonable objections to universal background checks and restrictions in assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines? You don't mention a single one? Mostly what I hear when I really listen to the La Pierre's and Huckabees if this world is the kind if total netball craziness I posted in response to your complaints of incivility. LaPierre seems only to be worried about ensuring that gun manufacturers can sell anything they'd like, devil take the consequences. Obamas thoughts about the disingenuousness of the good faith of the gun lobby are far milder than mine.

All he said was "shame on us if we've forgotten" That's the sum total of his McCarthyite incivility, a mild expression of dismay at the fact that needed reforms are getting watered down and stymied by the gun lobby and politicians afraid of the gun lobby in Congress. Do you, my law and order friend, express alarm at the ready availability of military style assault weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds in minutes, producing the volume of casualties we see in Connecticut and Colorado? You do not. You prefer to condemn the President for having the temerity to press Congress to do something about it.

Decency evolves:
If Obama wanted to demagogue, he'd really need to take lessons from someone like, oh, Senator Rand Paul, whose recent fundraising letter went, in part, like this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/04/03/read_one_of_the_fundraising_letters_rand_paul_is_sending_on_behalf_of_a.html

"Dear fellow Patriot,

Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

You see, only hours after re-election, Barack Obama immediately made a move for gun control...

On November 7th, his administration gleefully voted at the UN for a renewed effort to pass the "Small Arms Treaty."

I don't know about you, but watching anti-American globalists plot against our Constitution makes me sick.

What’s worse, the UN set March 18th-28th to meet to pass the final version of the treaty that will be sent to the Senate for ratification.

You and I will only have a few short months to prepare for this battle...

If we’re to succeed, we must fight back now.

That's why I’m helping lead the fight to defeat the UN "Small Arms Treaty" in the United States Senate.

And it's why I need your help today.

Will you join me by taking a public stand against the UN "Small Arms Treaty" and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey right away?

Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register,ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps.

But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works."

I'll say this for the President, he has nothing on conservatives.

Anyway, I hope these three posts sufficiently answered your questions.

Decencyevolves --

1. You follow up your discussion of Huckabee with an equally long, and equally diversionary, discussion of Rand Paul. You also replicate your lightning speed in changing the subject. Congratulations again!

P.S. The fact that Paul believes some important and correct things about our leviathan entitlement state is insufficient to convince me that he's anything but an airhead.

2. Obama directly implied that those who oppose HIS PARTICULAR MIX of gun control proposals have "forgotten" the Sandy Hook child massacre. That implication is scurrilous and false and he knows it. It's also a McCarthyite smear, and YOU know it.

3. To maintain, as Obama does, that differing with him on gun control is to be callous toward murder victims, and is inexplicable by anything other than crass politics, is reprehensible. It's not that his opponents are wrong; it's that they're inhumane (if not inhuman). You approve of this???

4. "Do you, my law and order friend, express alarm at the ready availability of military style assault weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds in minutes, producing the volume of casualties we see in Connecticut and Colorado?"

It was the shooter, not the weapon (or any other inanimate object) that did the killing. Do you, my complacent friend, express any alarm at the "let's-save-the-poor-misunderstood-James-Holmes" chorus going on about the man responsible for the volume of casualties in Colorado?

No, you don't. That's because -- guess what -- you're leading the tune! At least you haven't contributed to his defense fund (that I know about).

Holmes deserves compassion and a zillion taxpayer bucks for his defense, but the Second Amendment deserves a trip to the shredder. Far out!

5. "You prefer to condemn the President for having the temerity to press Congress to do something about it."

I prefer to condemn the President for his false and gutter-level attack on THE MOTIVES of anyone he can't bully into supporting his particular bill. You should condemn it too. There was a day when liberals were scandalized by McCarthyism. I guess that was then.

6. You lefties go ballistic (as it were) when conservatives allegedly attempt to nibble away at the right to vote by indirect measures such as voter ID. But you are perfectly happy when Obama attempts to nibble away at the Bill of Rights (Second Amendment gun rights in particular) by his own indirect measures to cramp its exercise.

Your side lost Heller, is still furious about it, and consequently seeks to circumvent the Constitutional protections Heller embraced.

I have to admit, though, the tactic of denying-rights-through-circumvention has a long pedigree. Exactly the same ploy was attempted by the side that lost Brown v. Board, by simply rebranding public schools as private "academies."

The tactic was transparent in the 1950's. It still is.

I had no idea you were such a fan of.military style assault weapons and large ammo clips, or that you were so hostile to background checks designed simoly to make it more difficult for violent criminals to acquire weapons. Are you afraid the big bad government is coming for your guns? Do you, like Senator Paul, worry that the UN is going to grab your gun and turn you into a slave of World Government? Do you need more than an ordinary rifle or handgun, not for hunting or personal safety, but to safeguard you from government tyranny? Too much of what I am hearing and seeing from conservative pundits and politicians smacks of just that kind of loony paranoia. And if you think Heller prevents the sort of modest regulations that the Administration is proposing, perhaps you should re-read it. It really doesn't stand for the idea that I can acquire any weapon and ammunition I like, free of government restrictions or oversight. Senators Lee and Cruz and Paul should be ashamed of themselves for pledging to filibuster any gun control bill brought to the floor of the Senate.

You might want to try to make less obvious your inability (and, I strongly suspect, disinclination) to defend Obama's McCarthyism. Indeed, you do not so much as mention Obama, nor refer to a word he has said. Now why is that?


C'mon, Mr. Decencyevolves, you're embarrassed by The One's going after his opponents' motives and basic humanity. Hey, look, it's OK to admit it, really.


Fess up now!


Still, I have to admit, you're making progress: You didn't mention Huckabee this time. On the other hand, you added to The Devil List Senators Lee and Cruz. In your next comment, maybe you'll take aim (as it were) at Everett Dirksen or Robert Taft.


-- "Do you, like Senator Paul, worry that the UN is going to grab your gun and turn you into a slave of World Government?"


OK, now I get it. It's not that you're unwilling or unable to rebut my post; it's that you didn't read it. If you had, you would have seen this line, " The fact that Paul believes some important and correct things about our leviathan entitlement state is insufficient to convince me that he's anything but an airhead."


-- " Do you need more than an ordinary rifle or handgun, not for hunting or personal safety, but to safeguard you from government tyranny?"


What I need is not particularly your business, but because I'm Mr. Nicey, I'll tell you anyway.


I don't need guns and don't have any. But the fact that that is my view of the world does not entitle me, and still less does it entitle The One, to dictate to others, what THEY view as needed.


He also doesn't get to tell me or them how much or what kind of speech is permissible.


-- "Too much of what I am hearing and seeing from conservative pundits and politicians smacks of just that kind of loony paranoia."


And too much of what I'm hearing from the President of the United States, who has vastly more power than other "pundits and politicians," smacks of Senator Joe from Wisconsin.


Gads, Decencyevolves, liberals like you used to lead the charge against this attack-the-motives type stuff. But I guess that was before liberal pundits and politicians decreed that to disagree with The One was to have one foot in the Klan. Are you on board with that, too?


-- "And if you think Heller prevents the sort of modest regulations that the Administration is proposing, perhaps you should re-read it."


It's always educational to hear from those who bitterly denounced Heller, and fume that it was wrongly decided, what it really, truly means. This is like listening to George Wallace hold forth on the subtleties of Brown v. Board.

Finally, as to filibusters, I'm sure you opposed the one Harry Reid orchestrated against Miguel Estrada. Can't have those conservative Hispanics!

It's incredibly telling that you can't defend the policy prescriptions or the rhetoric of the conservative politicians and pundits that you claim were unfairly impugned by the President. You don't bother to say you disagree with anything the Administration is proposing; they just aren't being nice enough in the arguments they make. How weak is that?

Believe it or not, I disagree with the policy George Wallace endorsed in the 1950s and 60s, not just his language. A small matter I grant you.

Conservative whining about the President's incivlity doesn't do much for me. As Finley Peter Dunne remarked, "Politics ain't beanbag." And conservative pundits and politicians aren't so very polite that I think it makes sense to place much stock in the martyred sensibilities of those who now insist "The President is being mean to me." Unless you were deaf and blind during the eight years of the Bush Administration, I'd think you'd know that Democrats aren't the only ones with sharp elbows.

Also, one mark of maturity in political arguments is treating different things differently and the same things the same. The Ku Klux Klan lynched people and George Wallace used force and every bit of his political power in an effort to keep black children in segregated substandard schools. Joseph McCarthy ruined people's lives and careers with false allegations of communist affiliations. Obama saying "shame on us if we've forgotten" the tragedy in Connecticut as he attempts to cobble together a legislative majority for at least some action on gun control policies which you still haven't said you disagree with isn't the same thing, Bill.


"It's incredibly telling that you can't defend the policy prescriptions or the rhetoric of the conservative politicians and pundits that you claim were unfairly impugned by the President."

I confess, it is telling. What it tells you is that I'm going to stick to the subject of the post, that being the use of demagoguery in the debate, not its merits (which I may or may not address in a future post).

Once again, you're trying to divert attention. Still, you're making progress; this time, you didn't launch on Huckabee, Rand Paul, Cruz, Lee, Dirksen, Taft (or Lady Gaga either). You're getting closer to actually focusing on what The One said, and, in particular, his slimy attack on his opponents' motives. Thank you! Why did it take ten comments to get there?


"Believe it or not, I disagree with the policy George Wallace endorsed in the 1950s and 60s, not just his language. A small matter I grant you."

It's less than small. It's of no consequence whatever. That's because the question was not whether you agree with segregation. The question was whether, since you opposed the outcome in Heller and think it was wrongly decided, you are in a whole lot better position to interpret its holding than Wallace was to interpret the holding in Brown v. Board.

You could not possibly have missed this obvious distinction, but you want to make like I was accusing you of being a Wallace-style segregationist.

Which is both diversionary and dishonest, isn't it?

You knew better as you were typing it, but went ahead anyway.

Come now.

Who is diverting who? You don't disagree with Obama's proposed policy, you don't defend the arguments made against them, or even in any meaningful sense, the people making them. You just insist its insufferable for him to say "shame on us if we've forgotten" the tragedy in Connecticut in an effort to get Congress to act by adopting extremely moderate controls such as universal background checks. What an overblown response to such a tepid stimulus! In your mind, that single mild statement is not simply "a slimy attack on his opponent's motives", it's the same thing as George Wallace and the Ku Klux Klan. Such a frivolous argument can prompt only one response. To quote the great Scooby Doo:

http://www.hark.com/clips/dyyjhmxzww-huh

As for slimy and ridiculous arguments by demagogues that have actually been made on the subject, I've given you two prime examples, which of course you've chosen to ignore, since they don't fit with your ideological predilections.

Sorry, I misread you. Apparently I'm George Wallace and you're in the klan? Again, Scooby Doo has the best answer for that bit of hyperbole too:

http://www.hark.com/clips/dyyjhmxzww-huh

Did I voice furious disagreement with Heller and not know it? You didn't disagree with my interpretation of it, so maybe you would agree with George Wallace's interpretation of Brown v. Board of Education. Last time I checked, lawyers didnt have to agree with precedents to correctly interpret them, at any rate. But then again, lest we be diverted, which I know you abhor, the topic is gun control and demagoguery and which politicians are engaging in it, not me or you anyway.

"Who is diverting who? You don't disagree with Obama's proposed policy, you don't defend the arguments made against them, or even in any meaningful sense, the people making them."

That's because this post is not about gun control. It's about Obama's McCarthyite TACTICS: attacks on the motives of his opponents.

You don't get the difference?

"You just insist its insufferable for him to say 'shame on us if we've forgotten' the tragedy in Connecticut..."

Yes, it is scurrilous, insulting and false, indeed preposterous, for Obama to suggest his opponents have forgotten the mass murder in Connecticut.

Do you disagree? Yes or no. No more dodging.

"...it's the same thing as George Wallace and the Ku Klux Klan."

You couldn't possibly be a practicing attorney and read with so little comprehension. What I said was that expecting a snarling opponent of Heller to explain its finer points is like expecting George Wallace to explain the finer points of Brown v. Board.

In fact, Heller vindicated an individual, Constitutional right to own guns. And you opposed that Constitutional right, didn't you?

Yes or no.

Well, we all know it's yes. But rather than accept your loss and put aside your contempt for that aspect of the Bill of Rights, you want to nullify Heller on the installment plan -- first "moderate controls" before we move on to the real agenda.

This is much the same thing as abbies saying they want a death penalty "moratorium" to "study the issues," when what they really want is a "moratorium" until the year ten million.

Your side would do better to avoid such dishonesty simply because dishonesty is wrong, but if you're going to do it, it should be more clever. It's too easy to see through the current shake-and-jive.

Expressing frustration at the degree to which moderate gun control proposals are being watered down and stymied with the mild admonition "shame on us if we forget" the tragedy in Connecticut is not demagoguery, no. It isn't scurrilous, or slimy, or even false. It's just a call to action, that's all, and not a terrifically strong one at that. The President's proposal don't constitute the nullification of Heller or the Second Amendment or gun rights on the installment plan, and its his proposals and his attemot to support him that are at issue here. Funalky, as I've shown, two of the most vocal opponents of the President's proposals, former Governor Huckabee on Fox News and Senator Rand Paul, are in fact scurrilous demagogues on this issue, in case you were wondering what one really looked like. The rest of your hand waving and attempts to draw me into ad hominem arguments to distract from the plain weakness of your arguments on these points aren't going to work.

The first two thirds of your response are just ipse dixit, and not very convincing ipse dixit, either. Obama was most certainly accusing his gun control opponents of having forgotten Sandy Hook, an accusation that's scurrilous and almost laughably false. No one's forgotten it, as you perfectly well know.

You used to do some thinking for yourself, but I see you've just started following the script from your latest DNC fundraising letter. I just hope you don't send them too much; they have other plans for bankrupting you.

"Funalky, as I've shown, two of the most vocal opponents of the President's proposals, former Governor Huckabee on Fox News and Senator Rand Paul, are in fact scurrilous demagogues on this issue, in case you were wondering what one really looked like."

No, thanks, I already know what they're like. They're the ones who call Kent and me barbarians, blood lusters, Nazis, etc., et al. for the sin of believing what Washington, Lincoln, FDR and great majority of Americans believe about the death penalty. So, if you were curious, I know what demagoguery is like, since I see it in the comments section on this (and other) blogs all the time. (You, of course, have strongly denounced that kind of thing, right??)

The people who fling around those accusations aren't, incidentally, always bad people. They're just so convinced they're right that they're unable to envision a principled person opposing them, ergo, those in opposition must be the Spawn of Satan.

That's what passes for "liberalism" these days. T'wasn't ever thus.

Conservatism has changed a lot more than liberalism:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/
When defense of mild gun restrictions and mikd rhetoric makes me George Wallace in the schoolhouse door, you might look in the mirror if you want to know who uses extreme rhetoric.

1. I'm sure you're an expert on conservatism. You and Barbara Boxer.


2. "When defense of mild gun restrictions and mikd rhetoric makes me George Wallace in the schoolhouse door, you might look in the mirror if you want to know who uses extreme rhetoric."

I never said you were George Wallace, segregationist, standing in the schoolhouse door, as you full well know (so come off it, hotshot). You are, however, the equivalent of George Wallace, "legal scholar," impersonating a lawyer interpreting a Supreme Court decision he hates.

Look, you opposed Heller from the getgo, you're still furious you lost, and so you want to nullify it as best you can, starting with "moderate" gun restrictions -- and moving on from there.

I'm not saying it's not a smart strategy, decencyevolves. I'm just saying you ought to quit disclaiming that it IS the strategy.

Decencyevolves --

Just to be clear: When I want to write a post about gun control legislation, I will. As I said in the original post here, I think it's a complicated subject. Reasonable minds can differ about it. That too is something liberals used to know, but now, Obama tells us that if you don't say Sieg Heil to whatever comes out of his mouth, you don't care about child murder.


And this guy is not a demagogue???


Sure.


But let's get to the major point you've been obscuring. I'm willing to assume that some additional gun control measures are worthwhile. I'm not sure of that, or sure of what they would be, because I'm not the gun control expert you obviously take yourself to be, but it might well turn out that way.


The problem is your EXCLUSIVE focus on controlling the gun, while saying zero about controlling the person who wields it.


Does this strike you as unbalanced?


All the guns used at Sandy Hook would have done not a lick of damage but for Adam Lanza. To paraphrase Hillary, it takes a criminal to destroy a village.


What are your proposals for controlling, not just the guns involved in a mass shooting, but the mass shooter? A determined and crafty person intent on an episode like this will get guns one way or another, legally or illegally, so gun control cannot possibly be the whole answer. We are going to have to control the shooter.


Again, what is your proposal for that?


It seems to me that, in a society that cares about civil liberties and doesn't want to head in the direction of "1984," we can't lock up people preemptively. I'm willing to listen to argument on that as well, but that's my present view. It's just too easy for a bunch of shrinks to decide that the annoying and scary town eccentric needs to be put away.


If I'm right about that, it seems to me that we can only deal with these shooters retrospectively, i.e., by an after-the-fact criminal trial.


Let's use an apt example: Adam Lanza.


My proposal is this: Had Lanza been captured and found sane (knowing right from wrong and able to control himself), he should have been tried for mass child murder and executed. The idea that a prison sentence would be proportionate to his crime is beyond absurd, as you couldn't help knowing.


Would you agree to that?


From what I've seen of you, the answer is no. To the contrary, you'd go volcanic and brand me a Nazi for so much as suggesting it. So what it turns out to be is that you're all for controlling the gun (as the first step on the way to effectively nullifying Heller down the road), and avoiding at all costs the one thing we know for sure would put the shooter permanently out of business.


In other words, you want to control the inanimate gun, but avoid the only guaranteed way to control the person who uses it.


OK, well, different strokes for different folks. But don't accuse me of being the one who's forgotten the lessons of Sandy Hook.

You just love all the Nazi and Sieg Heil stuff don't you, my temperate friend? Obama is doing what he can to persuade Congress to adopt popular and very mild gun regulation, with which you still don't claim to disagree with. My defense of his language, which involves actually quoting what he said verbatim rather than the inaccurate characterizations you attribute to him, isn't so much an ipse dixit as res ipsa loquitur. Perhaps that is why you are so anxious to change the subject to my beliefs on a range of subjects I haven't brought up in this thread. You aren't defending the filibuster of even debating the subject of gun control, which Mitch McConnell has now joined, let alone the intemperate language used by Huckabee and Paul. Perhaps I should just take that as a concession that you agree that the GOP, not Obama, are the unreasonable ones at this point.

I'm really not interested in squirming away from the subject of this thread. That's too easy somehow and you and I don't make policy anyway, the last time I checked. What I or you would do if one if us were King is far less interesting to me than what the government will actually do or not do in the wake of Sandy Hook.

"You just love all the Nazi and Sieg Heil stuff don't you, my temperate friend?

You can just stop right there.

1. Are you implying that I am a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer?

2. If not, what is the need for you to employ very provocative and insulting language like whether I "love" Nazi emblems? Who would love them but a Nazi or a closet Nazi?

Scoring a rhetorical (but intentionally offensive) point against an author of this blog is not a "need." It is also not any other kind of excuse.

Answer the questions.

Do you even read what you write? "Obama tells us that if you don't say Sieg Heil to whatever comes out of his mouth, you don't care about child murder." And then "To the contrary, you'd go volcanic and brand me a Nazi for so much as suggesting it." You just are desperate to make this about name calling rather than policy and I've got little patience for it. It's all George Wallace and the Klan and Seig Heil and Nazis in your responses. Similar to other conservative commentators and pundits I have named, but in your mind it's Obama and I who are being intemperate. The absurdity of it all does speak for itself, doesn't it?

No, I am not, I am implying that you overuse the words in your posts. You still haven't noticed that you keep bringing up Nazis. Why do you? Are you implying that Barack Obama is some kind of Fuehrer with that statement? And why the references to Nazis in your posts above, and George Wallace and the Klan for that matter? It's the verbal equivalent of shouting. It's remarkably unpersuasive and it totally undermines the notion that others are uncivil rather than you.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives