Skip to main content

Do you believe in

  • Fiscal Responsibility
  • Constitutionally Limited Government
  • Free Markets

If so the president of the United States and James Hoffa want you dead.

 

Despite President Obama’s repeated claims to change the tone in Washington, the White House had no comment this afternoon after Teamsters Union leader James Hoffa, speaking at an event before President Obama, said of Tea Party activists that, come November, Democrats should “take these sons of *****es out.”

Warming up the crowd before President Obama’s Labor Day speech in Detroit this afternoon, Hoffa warned the largely union crowd that the Tea Party was waging a “war on workers.”

“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war,” Hoffa told thousands of workers gathered for the annual event organized by the Detroit Labor Council.

“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march…Everybody here’s got a vote…Let’s take these sons of *****es out and give America back to an America where we belong,” he concluded.

The Tea Party Express has called on President Obama to “condemn this inappropriate and uncivil rhetoric,” saying it “has no place in the public forum.”

“Jimmy Hoffa’s remarks are inexcusable and amount to a call for violence on peaceful tea party members, which include many Teamster members,” Tea Party Express chair Amy Kremer said in a written statement.

During the 2008 campaign, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., immediately rebuked talk radio host Bill Cunningham when he disparaged then-Senator Obama in his opening remarks at a McCain campaign event. In the view of many observers, Cunningham had fueled rumors that Obama was Muslim by repeatedly referring to him by his full name “Barack Hussein Obama.”

McCain immediately took responsibility and profusely apologized for Cunningham’s remarks.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...t-labor-day-rally-2/

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

From US World and News Report:

 

In March Palin unveiled a “Take Back the 20” website, featuring a U.S. map targeting--with bullseyes--20 Democratic House members, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. In announcing the list on Twitter, Palin urged her supporters, “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” Palin made the phrase a part of her campaign trail repertoire.

 

But all of you right-wingers said she didn't MEAN it wthe way it sounds. Palin even tried to call them "surveyor's marks". What is she going to "reload" - her plumb-bob?

 

I don't think anyone on the right has the right to complain about anything Hoffa said, when the former Republican vice-presidential candidate has said and done worse.

Originally Posted by O No!:

From US World and News Report:

 

In March Palin unveiled a “Take Back the 20” website, featuring a U.S. map targeting--with bullseyes--20 Democratic House members, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. In announcing the list on Twitter, Palin urged her supporters, “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” Palin made the phrase a part of her campaign trail repertoire.

 

But all of you right-wingers said she didn't MEAN it wthe way it sounds. Palin even tried to call them "surveyor's marks". What is she going to "reload" - her plumb-bob?

 

I don't think anyone on the right has the right to complain about anything Hoffa said, when the former Republican vice-presidential candidate has said and done worse.

Target... focus... interchangeable. Reload... repeat... interchangeable.

What's funny is that Media Matters tried to lie, spin and squirm around to effect a denial... till Hoffa Jr. doubled down and basically said he would say it again, effectively scuttling the spinfest.

Originally Posted by O No!:

At least he's honest. Your gal Palin tried to weasel out of it and call them "surveyor's marks", just the way she tried to weasel out of admitting she doesn't know US history when she said that Paul Revere was warning the British.

My gal? How very 'evolved feminist' of you. If you will recall there was more than one historian that said depending on when during Revere's ride you were referring to, what she said couldbe considered correct, but don't let a fact get in your way...

Oh please, Mark. It is possible to twist anything and try to make it make sense, but everyone knows she blew it.

 

And as was pointed out to you on the other thread, you all said that Palin's violent rhetoric was OK. And Hoffa's remarks were NOT even in the same catagory. He said we have to "take them out in NOVEMBER". It's pretty obvious that he is talking about VOTES, not bullets. He said the Tea Party has started a "war on workers", and that the unions were ready to fight back in that war. Nowhere NEAR as inflammatory as Palin's gunsites. Nowhere NEAR as violent as "Don't retreat - RELOAD".

Originally Posted by O No!:

Oh please, Mark. It is possible to twist anything and try to make it make sense, but everyone knows she blew it.

And as was pointed out to you on the other thread, you all said that Palin's violent rhetoric was OK. And Hoffa's remarks were NOT even in the same catagory. He said we have to "take them out in NOVEMBER". It's pretty obvious that he is talking about VOTES, not bullets. He said the Tea Party has started a "war on workers", and that the unions were ready to fight back in that war. Nowhere NEAR as inflammatory as Palin's gunsites. Nowhere NEAR as violent as "Don't retreat - RELOAD".

Yes... I see that you believe what you say. Let me put this as succinctly as possible, you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Those are dartboards.

Has anyone been killed by darts lately? 

Says TARGETS doesn't it? You think they were throwing darts at it all day? This was published publicly , Sarah's map was at her own website.

 

Hoffa is a fool and Obama acted like one agreeing with him. No one likes the unions thug appeal and they are just making themselves look more idiotic.

We went through all of this before. "Target date", "target audience", "target" the store. The word target means much else besides something to shoot at. Crosshairs, on the other hand, mean only one thing.

 

And Mark, it is YOU who is wrong - and quite hypocritical if you refuse to admit that crosshairs and "reload" are inflammatory speech, and yet you condemn "take them out in November".

 

Oh, and yeah, Palin was wrong about Paul Revere, and by defending her on that, you come across as lame as she is.

Palin was not wrong ONO. Go to Factcheck.  She got it a little mixed up, but not wrong.

 

As for targets, bull's eyes, etc.. all of it has been used in everything from politics to selling ice cream.

 

Now calling the Tea Party racist, bigots, sons of b******, and telling them to Go To Hell are all a bit much, don't you think?

Originally Posted by b50m:

Palin was not wrong ONO. Go to Factcheck.  She got it a little mixed up, but not wrong.

 

As for targets, bull's eyes, etc.. all of it has been used in everything from politics to selling ice cream.

 

Now calling the Tea Party racist, bigots, sons of b******, and telling them to Go To Hell are all a bit much, don't you think?

___________________________________________________________________________
B, she messed up. Like I said, anyone can take something someone said and try to twist it to make sense, but she really didn't know what Paul Revere's ride was all about, and that is abundantly clear to anyone who heard her.
 
Yes, TARGETS and BULLSEYES are used for lot's of things, but as I said, CROSSHAIRS are a totally different thing - ESPECIALLY when they are paired with words like "reload". Her message about Revere was muddled, but her message with the crosshairs and "reload" are as clear as day.
 
I don't know who called Tea Partiers racists, bigots, or told them to go to hell. I didn't see that in Hoffa's remarks. But I know the racist title has been used a lot when the Tea Party is mentioned. Frankly that is because a lot (not ALL) of the Tea people ARE racist. A person is known by the company they keep, and I knew right at the outset, that there were some extreme wacko's in the Tea Party - and I am talking about LOCAL people now, not anyone on the national stage - and I knew right away that regardless of what they stood for, they were a group I would never associate myself with.

How did you miss this?

 

California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, who had some tough words for the leaders of her own party last week, took aim at the other side on Saturday, saying that the tea party could "go straight to hell."

"I'm not afraid of anybody," Waters said at a weekend community meeting in Inglewood, California. "This is a tough game. You can't be intimidated. You can't be frightened. And as far as I'm concerned, the tea party can go straight to hell."

Originally Posted by b50m:

Frankly that is because a lot (not ALL) of the Tea people ARE racist.

 

Sad ONO.  I am disappointed that you said that. You are believing your left talking points too much.

____________________________________________________________________________

No B, I am not getting this from any party talking points. As I said, I am talking about LOCAL people, whom I KNOW. One of whom uses the N word frequently, one who was disgusted when a racially mixed couple came in here, and went on and on about how it should be against the law (!), and one who said, "I'm not racist, but I AM patriotic, and I hate that n-i-g--r" when talking about our president.

Originally Posted by O No!:

We went through all of this before. "Target date", "target audience", "target" the store. The word target means much else besides something to shoot at. Crosshairs, on the other hand, mean only one thing.

 

And Mark, it is YOU who is wrong - and quite hypocritical if you refuse to admit that crosshairs and "reload" are inflammatory speech, and yet you condemn "take them out in November".

 

Oh, and yeah, Palin was wrong about Paul Revere, and by defending her on that, you come across as lame as she is.

I have heard weather forecasters say something similar to this, "The city of Whatever is in the cross hairs of hurricane Pseudonym..." Yeah... I was all "inflamed" when I heard it...  and what I condem specifically in here...


"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa said to a heavily union crowd.

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of *****es out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.

 

Your more innocuous 'translation' into "take them out in November" is entirely disingenuous. Yeah, no inflammatory language at all... if you're willfully blind maybe...  they only want to 'take' and 'give' in some twisted idea about being Robin Hood.

 

Like I said, NEVER let a fact get in your way... willfull ignorance is stupidity, thanks for being another example.

Last edited by marksw59
Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by b50m:

Frankly that is because a lot (not ALL) of the Tea people ARE racist.

 

Sad ONO.  I am disappointed that you said that. You are believing your left talking points too much.

____________________________________________________________________________

No B, I am not getting this from any party talking points. As I said, I am talking about LOCAL people, whom I KNOW. One of whom uses the N word frequently, one who was disgusted when a racially mixed couple came in here, and went on and on about how it should be against the law (!), and one who said, "I'm not racist, but I AM patriotic, and I hate that n-i-g--r" when talking about our president.

Kind of says something about the caliber of folks you are associating with. Wait, you mean Obama is black?

Were these people racists before Obama got elected, ONO?

 

I know people  who hate Mexicans. Why, because they are Mexicans. Racial hatred is learned and it has nothing to do with a political party or a president or  an election.

 

Are there some racists in the Tea Party? I'm sure there are. They are also in the democratic party, the republican party, the churches, the schools, the hospitals, etc.....

 

Is the Tea Party run on a basis of racism? No.

OK, here you go. An article explaining how the Tea Party must wagw political war. I warn you, first, it is long. What I posted here is just an excerpt. I also warn you it is so insulting to American voters that it just might make you gag, with lines like: "Conservatives can also turn the left's oppression myth around, and aim its guns at them."

 

AIM ITS GUNA AT THEM - hmmm...no violent rhetoric there...

 

THIS line is quite revealing: "In political warfare you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy's fighting ability."

 

More "warfare":

 

 

"Politics is a war of position.

In war there are two sides: friends and enemies. Your task is to define yourself as the friend of as large a constituency compatible with your principles as possible, while defining your opponent as their enemy wherever and whenever you can. The act of defining combatants is analogous to the military concept of choosing the terrain of battle."

 

Now we get to the insulting parts:

 

 "For starters, you have only 30 seconds to make your point. Even if you had time to develop an argument, the audience you need to reach (the undecided and those in the middle who are not paying much attention) wouldn't get it. Your words would go over some of their heads and the rest would not even hear them (or be quickly forgotten) amidst the bustle and pressure of daily life."

 

Sounds like he's saying voters aren't smart enough to get it.

 

And how about this!

 "Symbols and sound-bites determine the vote. These are what hit people in the gut before they have time to think."

 

Hmmm...hit 'em with sound bites before they have time to think...

 

Here's the whole article, followed by the part I excerpted:

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2...for-tea-parties.html


.The Art of Political War for Tea Parties .
Friday, 27 November 2009 16:42 David Horowitz   

*          *          *

A movement without an effective strategy for defeating its opponents cannot succeed. Therefore it is important to reacquaint ourselves with the art of political war.

While Democrats are morally bankrupt and clueless about policy - about what makes things work - they still win elections because they understand a simple fact: American politics is driven by the romance of the underdog, the story of the little guy who goes up against the system and triumphs in the end. It is a story about opportunity and fairness. To win the hearts and minds of the American voter, you have to tap the emotions the romance of the underdog evokes. Whoever does so has a winning edge.

 

Going On The Attack

Fortunately, conservatives can use the left-wing attack against them. Contrary to the left's view, America is not a land of victims. It is a highly mobile society, with a citizenry that aspires upwards through the system, not against it.

Conservatives can also turn the left's oppression myth around, and aim its guns at them. In fact, using the romance of the underdog against the left is the best way to neutralize their attack.

The way to do it is to recognize that the most powerful forces obstructing opportunity for poor and minority Americans, the most powerful forces oppressing them, are progressives, the Democratic Party, and their political creation-the welfare state.

There is really nothing new in this idea. Conservatives already oppose the programs of the left as obstacles to the production of wealth and barriers to opportunity for all Americans. What is new is the idea of connecting this analysis to a political strategy that will give conservatives a decisive edge in battle-that will neutralize the class, race and gender warfare attacks of the political left.

The Principles

Here are the principles of political war that the left understands but conservatives do not:

1. Politics is war conducted by other means

2. Politics is a war of position

3. In political wars the aggressor usually prevails

4. Position is defined by fear and hope

5. The weapons of politics are symbols evoking fear and hope

6. Victory lies on the side of the people

Here are the principles explained:

Politics is war conducted by other means.

In political warfare you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy's fighting ability. Conservatives often seem to regard political combats as they would a debate before the Oxford Political Union, as though winning depends on rational arguments and carefully articulated principles. But the audience of politics is not made up of Oxford dons, and the rules are entirely different.

For starters, you have only 30 seconds to make your point. Even if you had time to develop an argument, the audience you need to reach (the undecided and those in the middle who are not paying much attention) wouldn't get it. Your words would go over some of their heads and the rest would not even hear them (or be quickly forgotten) amidst the bustle and pressure of daily life. Worse, while you've been making your argument the other side has already painted you as a mean-spirited, border-line racist controlled by religious zealots, securely in the pockets of the rich. Nobody who sees you this way is going to listen to you in any case. You're politically dead.

Politics is war. Don't forget it.

Politics is a war of position.

In war there are two sides: friends and enemies. Your task is to define yourself as the friend of as large a constituency compatible with your principles as possible, while defining your opponent as their enemy wherever and whenever you can. The act of defining combatants is analogous to the military concept of choosing the terrain of battle.

Choose the terrain that makes the fight as loaded in your favor as possible. But be careful. American politics takes place in a pluralistic framework, where constituencies are diverse and often in conflict. "Fairness" and "tolerance" are the formal rules of democratic engagement. If you appear mean-spirited, nasty, or too judgmental, it will make the task easier for your opponent to define you as a threat, and therefore as "the enemy." (See principle 4)

In political warfare, the aggressor usually prevails.

Conservatives often pursue a strategy of waiting for the other side to attack. In football this is known as a "prevent defense." In politics it is the strategy of losers.

Aggression is advantageous because politics is a war of position. Position is defined by images that stick. By striking first you can define the issues and your adversary. Defining the opposition is the decisive move in all political war. Other things being equal, whoever is put on the defensive generally winds up on the losing side.

In attacking your opponent, take care to do it right. Going negative increases the risk of being defined as an enemy. Therefore, it can be counter-productive. Ruling out the negative, however, can incur an even greater risk.

Position is defined by fear and hope.

The twin emotions of politics are fear and hope. Those who provide people with hope become their friends; those who inspire fear become enemies. Of the two, hope is the better choice. By offering people hope and yourself as its provider, you show your better side and maximize your potential support.

But fear is a powerful and indispensable weapon. If your opponent defines you negatively enough, he will diminish your ability to offer hope. This is why Democrats are so determined to portray conservatives as mean-spirited, and hostile to minorities, the middle class and the poor.

It is important to work away from the negative images your opponent wants to pin on you. If you know you are going to be attacked as intolerant and bigoted it's a good idea to lead with a position that is inclusive and fair-minded. If you are going to be framed as mean-spirited and ungenerous, it's a good idea to put on a smile and lead with symbols that project generosity and charity.

The weapons of politics are symbols evoking fear and hope.

Conservatives lose a lot of political battles because they come across as hard-edged, scolding, scowling and sanctimonious. A good rule of thumb says be just the opposite. You have to convince people you care about them before they'll care about what you have to say.

When you do get to speak, don't forget that a sound-bite is all you have. Whatever you have to say, make sure to say it loud and clear. Keep it simple and keep it short. (A slogan is always better). Repeat it often. Get it on television. Radio is good, but with few exceptions, only television reaches a public that is electorally significant. In politics, television is reality.

Of course, you have a base of supporters who will listen for hours to what you have to say if that's what you want. In the battles facing you, they will play an important role. Therefore, what you say to them is also important. But it is not going to decide elections. The audiences that will determine your fate are audiences that you will first have to persuade. You will have to find a way to reach them and get them to listen. And get them to support you. With these audiences, you will never have time for real arguments or proper analyses. Images-symbols and sound-bites-will always prevail.

Therefore it is absolutely essential to focus your message and repeat it over and over again. Lack of focus will derail your message. If you make too many points, your message will be diffused and nothing will get through. The result will be the same as if you had made no point at all.

Leftists have a party line. When they are fighting an issue they focus their agenda. During legislative battles, every time a Democrat steps in front of the cameras there is at least one line in his speech that is shared with his colleagues. "Tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of the poor," is one example. Repetition insures that the message will get through.

When Republicans speak during legislative battles, they all march to a different drummer. There are many messages instead of one. One message is a sound-bite. Many messages are an indecipherable noise. The result of many messages is that there is no message.

Symbols and sound-bites determine the vote. These are what hit people in the gut before they have time to think. And these are what people remember. Symbols are the impressions that last, and what ultimately defines you.

Carefully chosen words and phrases are more important than paragraphs, speeches, party platforms and manifestos. What you project through images is what you are.

Victory lies on the side of the people.

Oh my! No longer can we use expressions we've heard all our lives. No more, "gun it", no more "bring out the big guns", no more "I have you in my sights", or "he's been gunning for you". ALL expressions along with many more that we have heard and used all our lives. I see the day coming when little girls can't "jump rope" because they would hang black people (and of course white people but those don't count) with ropes. Will it be jumping "fibers bond into one continuous line by either twisting or braiding them" so no one is offended by the word rope? Will the target stores have to change their names?

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Oh my! No longer can we use expressions we've heard all our lives. No more, "gun it", no more "bring out the big guns", no more "I have you in my sights", or "he's been gunning for you". ALL expressions along with many more that we have heard and used all our lives. I see the day coming when little girls can't "jump rope" because they would hang black people (and of course white people but those don't count) with ropes. Will it be jumping "fibers bond into one continuous line by either twisting or braiding them" so no one is offended by the word rope? Will the target stores have to change their names?

___________________________________________________________________________
So, Jennifer, you agree with me that Hoffa's remarks are not violent?

 

Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Oh my! No longer can we use expressions we've heard all our lives. No more, "gun it", no more "bring out the big guns", no more "I have you in my sights", or "he's been gunning for you". ALL expressions along with many more that we have heard and used all our lives. I see the day coming when little girls can't "jump rope" because they would hang black people (and of course white people but those don't count) with ropes. Will it be jumping "fibers bond into one continuous line by either twisting or braiding them" so no one is offended by the word rope? Will the target stores have to change their names?

___________________________________________________________________________
So, Jennifer, you agree with me that Hoffa's remarks are not violent?

 

I do believe that you sarcasm detector is either off or defective, because only willfully ignorant, self deluded folks are going the agree that "Let's take those S-O-Bs out!" coming out of the mouth of Jimmy Hoffa junior isn't an incitement to violence. Your efforts to paint some sort of "moral equivalence" imagery have been farcical.

Originally Posted by O No!:

Mark, the only thing farcical about this whole discussion is your refusal to acknowledge that the Tea Party has engaged in violent rhetoric. Did you even bother to read the article I posted? How can you be so hypocritical?

I read it. At the risk of being accused of repeating myself, "Only the willfully ignorant, self deluded folks are going the agree that "Let's take those S-O-Bs out!" coming out of the mouth of Jimmy Hoffa junior isn't an incitement to violence."

 Did you even bother to read that when I originally posted it? I won't even ask how you manage your hypocrisy.

In your... mind, this book, Sun Tzu - The Art of War for Managers, is probably considered violent, inflammatory rhetoric.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×