Subscribe
Notify of
49 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

DeBlasio has a gigantic ego.
Calls for him to resign will be ignored.

I’ve said it before, but it is really true that these marchers DeBlasio and others claim to support don’t have a unified message.
They only appear to.
IF their agendas were written out they would immediately factionate and all these rallies would end.
Obama’s ”empty frame” into which you can place any old thing is vital to their keeping their movement together.

Al Sharpton claims to be getting death threats.
He has been losing his audience.
Earlier this month…..

As Sharpton took the podium dozens and dozens of protesters walked west on Pennsylvania Ave, leaving the ‘Justice for All’ march in D.C.

Quotes from a couple of them:

“We wanted to be here. This was wonderful. But we’re good,” says Kiesha Thomas, 32, of Chicago.

David Saunders, 62, was also leaving. “I believe in the march. But I don’t want to hear him.”

???? You are finally realizing that “the left” has many many different points of view?
Does that mean that you are going to finally stop demonizing all for the faults of the few?

Can you imagine if all people who voted GOP were lumped under the STORMFRONT Nazi banner?
When Cliven Bundy’s group of 300 pointed guns at law enforcement who here condemned them?

@john:

???? You are finally realizing that “the left” has many many different points of view?
Does that mean that you are going to finally stop demonizing all for the faults of the few?

Project much? Please.

Any “many different points of view” subscribed to the left are nothing but kabuki theater meant to distract from the single-minded totalitarian goal of collectivism.

De Blasio is just as despicable, foolish and a bloviating political opportunist as Sharpton, Jackson and Obama. All are chirping parrots of leftist idiocy with no principles other than self-aggrandizement.

If De Blasio had any integrity (he wouldn’t be a socialist, but that is another discussion) he would never have sided with a mass of thugs chanting about wanting dead police officers, but would have clearly condemned such filthy leftist agitprop. Since he didn’t have the brains nor integrity to do that, why should anyone think this skunk would have the integrity to resign in the disgrace he so richly deserves?

These ”different” points of view also come out of the same mouths depending on how their dog whistling went over.
Tacitly, between the lines, Holder, Obama, DeBlasio and other called for those ”stupid” police to be murdered.
When it happened they all changed their tune.
The real question is what’s next out of their mouths.
What’s next as their proposals for ”change.”
What’s next for whether we will be a nation of law or a nation of criminals.

@john:

???? You are finally realizing that “the left” has many many different points of view?

Sure the left has many different points of view. They have one POV for blacks, one for Hispanics who they are now pandering to at the expense of blacks, one for the feminists, one for the green weenies, et al. Except their POV on one group is not necessarily what is good for another group. Identity politics, that’s all the left knows.

Can you imagine if all people who voted GOP were lumped under the STORMFRONT Nazi banner?

News flash, Stormfront is radical left wing, just as the Nazis were. So only a moron who knows nothing about history would even make that equation. But then, John, you’ve never proven yourself to be too sharp.

@retire05, #5:

News flash, Stormfront is radical left wing, just as the Nazis were.

That bit of news would certainly surprise the hell out of all the right-wing extremists, white supremacists, and anti-Semites who post there, to make no mention of several generations of history and political science teachers.

All of this revisionist nonsense seems to be built on the fact that the word “socialist” was part of the name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. You might as well argue that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must truly be democratic and a republic. (They have a lovely website. Maybe a proportional response could include painting Snidely Whiplash mustaches on everybody. I might drop that in the White House suggestion box.)

De Blasio was just directly asked if he would now support the police openly.
He said that viewpoint needs to be ”transcended.”
He only wants the ”burn the bitch” and ”no justice, no peace” people to wait until after both funerals before taking over the streets some more.
No demand they get permits or approved routs, either.
So, pray for those in ambulances dying in traffic jams of protestors.

The internet has just gone down in North Korea. Possibly a cyber-attack. That must be annoying for the few who had access to it.

You know DJ, I wonder sometimes if you are really this incredibly stupid or does your abject bigotry impede any rational thought process you might have.

I mean, let’s take

“Bill Clinton said that Eric Garner did not deserve to die. The NYPD did not deserve to have Garner resist arrest either. Have you heard Clinton said that Ramos and Wenjian didn’t deserve to die?”

I would say that most people of reasonable intellect would agree that Garner, for the offense he committed, did not deserve to die. But, as we know, he unfortunately did. The circumstances of his death can be argued but “deserved”? Again, most rational people would not look at his actions and say his death was deserving. That’s just a common sense simple conclusion that most common sense people not engulfed in prejudiced and hatred here in the real world would likely agree on.

Now, are you really and seriously trying to tell us that because Clinton hasn’t commented on the shootings, that somehow means he feels Ramos and Wenjian deserved to die? I really don’t think you do as I really don’t think you are that stupid. What is does say is that you are so profoundly dishonest in your arguments that you have to create such dishonest and unwarranted accusations simply to abet your hate fest agenda. What that does tell us is that your bigoted screeds have no merit whatsoever as otherwise you wouldn’t have to resort to such deceitful measures.

You are indeed an argumentative fraud peddling snake oil.

left wing anti-establishment liberal

Correction: political left-wing progressives now are the Washington D.C. Establishment and that includes the progressive establishment wing of the GOP.

@Greg:

All of this revisionist nonsense seems to be built on the fact that the word “socialist” was part of the name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Actually, the revisionism comes from people like you who have been brain washed into thinking Hitler, and the Nazis, were right wing. But then, I guess you think Engels, who had a devotee in Hitler, was also right wing.

@Ronald+J.+Ward:

Again, most rational people would not look at his actions and say his death was deserving.

I don’t think anyone thinks Warner ‘deserved’ to die. But he was in very bad health and should not have been participating in illegal activities and certainly should not have fought with the police officers when they attempted to arrest him.

@retire05, #11:

Actually, the revisionism comes from people like you who have been brain washed into thinking Hitler, and the Nazis, were right wing.

If it’s the left that’s practicing historical revisionism, why has the goofy claim that Hitler and the Nazis were leftists only turned up recently? I doubt if you can find any sources asserting that the Nazis were on the far left of the political spectrum dating before the year 2000 or so.

Shall we consult the words a recognized authority on the subject?

“There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the
people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises;
one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the
coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that
party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to
complete destruction – to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right
which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has
lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is
determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power – that is
the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here,
too, there can be no compromise – there are only two possibilities:
either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory
of the Jew.”

—Adolf Hitler; from his speech of April 12, 1921

Care to read the entire speech? You can find it here.

There’s some serious brainwashing going on, all right. You guys are running the laundry.

time for his removal. the only way he was elected was because of his wife’s color.
He will ruin NYC along with the “slime”. Time to get him out.

@Greg:

You are being your usual lying leftist propagandist self, which demonstrates your complete lack of honesty. Actual historical review of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party platform will demonstrate the leftist totality of their philosophy – very similar to the political platform of the democrat party in the US when compared side-by-side – complete with the anti-Jewish component of the current BDS movement ensconced in leftist academia today.

Your weak blathering of “nazis weren’t really socialist just because they called themselves that” to what marxist regimes have been doing calling themselves “democratic republics” is a deliberate effort to deny the inherent propaganda such regimes used to fool historically challenged idiots like Duranty, Chomsky, and you. Such efforts only work on people who have no actual knowledge of history outside of the Orwellian lens of leftist distortion.

Leftists change their labels each time the current label becomes unpopular – which is why the cycle ran from “progressive” to “socialist” to “liberal” and has circled back to “progressive” again, since Reagan was able to make the “liberal” label so distasteful. Changing your spots doesn’t change the foul essence of your collectivist philosophy. The only differences between nazism and communism were who would be at the top of the political food chain, with the nazis choosing to have a thin veneer of corporatist cover over their totalitarianism, and more blatant racism than communism. And lest you try to play ignorant again, the commies in the US were anti-war when BFFs Hitler and Stalin were carving up Poland. That all changed once Hitler invaded Russia in 1940.

If you had any integrity at all you would research the Nazi Party Platform from 1928 and 1932, and compare it to the democrat political platform in the US.

Since you don’t have any integrity, you will ignore such research and continue your moronic “nazis were right-wing” balderdash.

De Blasio has no power at all.
Yesterday he called for protestors to quit protesting until after the funerals.
Today the protestors thumbed their noses at him!
*Al Sharpton told Reuters late Monday that de Blasio’s request was too “ill-defined” to heed.
*The Answer Coalition, (commies) said it would go ahead with a long-planned march Tuesday evening, and denounced the mayor for what it called an “outrageous” attempt to chill free speech.
*A ”die-in” has already taken place today at Grand Central Station with a march afterwards.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/23/nyc-protesters-say-wont-stop-demonstrations-despite-de-blasio-wishes/

From Nazis themselves, in their own words, showing they were not right wing, no matter how desperately the socialists of today try to avoid the common philosophy with nazism:

The source: Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932).

Maintaining a rotten economic system has nothing to do with nationalism, which is an affirmation of the Fatherland. I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Not only can I, I must. Only the annihilation of a system of exploitation carries with it the core of the rebirth of our people.

We are nationalists because as Germans, we love Germany. Because we love Germany, we want to preserve it and fight against those who would destroy it. If a Communist shouts “Down with nationalism!”, he means the hypocritical bourgeois patriotism that sees the economy only as a system of slavery. If we make clear to the man of the left that nationalism and capitalism, that is the affirmation of the Fatherland and the misuse of its resources, have nothing to do with each other, indeed that they go together like fire and water, then even as a socialist he will come to affirm the nation, which he will want to conquer.

That is our real task as National Socialists. We were the first to recognize the connections, and the first to begin the struggle. Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany.

A young fatherland will rise when the socialist front is firm.

Socialism will become reality when the Fatherland is free.

Why Are We Socialists?

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!

The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.

Not that I expect Greg – or any other socialist – to have the integrity to read what the Nazis put forth as their underlying SOCIALIST and anti-capitalist philosophy, but I am sick and tired of deceitful leftists pushing the blatant lie that the nazis were right wing, rather than the left-wingers they so clearly were. The nazis were just more blatant in their racial prejudice against Jews, and obsessed with their racial superiority schtick. Commies subvert their racism into their idiotic class warfare vaudeville routine.

Any ideology that professes virtue in stealing from one group to placate the greed and envy of another group by using the misapplication of “fairness” is inherently dishonest, evil, and designed solely to coerce a majority of a population to give over its liberty to the collectivist ringleader.

Unfortunately, it is too common in human nature for one to willingly accept self-enslavement to the empty verbal artifice of gilded-tongue liars.

@Pete:

The left, especially in academia, have been pushing the meme that Hitler, and the Nazis, were rightists ever since the war ended. The reason is that the leftist, no matter what they call themselves, do not want to be associated with a leftist philosophy that created so much suffering. Just more of their dishonesty and deceit. Useful idiots like Greggie buy that meme.

@retire05:

Just more of their dishonesty and deceit.

Which, of course, is the central issue for lefties. They just don’t like the light of day to shine on them for what they are.

@Greg: The Nazis were neither far left nor far right–they were extremists whose primary goal was to eliminate Jews–with extreme prejudice.
Scoop Neither Obama or Bush are Nazis–move on nothing to see here.

@Greg:

If it’s the left that’s practicing historical revisionism, why has the goofy claim that Hitler and the Nazis were leftists only turned up recently?

Because only recently did the left, desperate to appear to be better than anyone, begin making comparisons between Republicans and the Nazis. How many right wing socialists do you know?

Like all socialists, the Nazis lied about their goals and intentions. Meanwhile, the real goal, as with all socialists, was absolute power and self-enrichment.

@Rich+Wheeler:

Scoop Neither Obama or Bush are Nazis–move on nothing to see here.

I agree, to an extent. However, if you want to draw parallels, look at the way the liberals act nowadays compared to the way the Nazis gained and maintained power. Using the governement to target political enemies, having a propaganda machine to control the message, disaming the public, manipulating and using dim-wits to create social unrest and demonizing those in society that pose a political obsticle.

The historical fact is that Nazis persecuted every left-leaning person, party, and organization in Germany and in the nations they occupied from the time they appeared until the day their government fell. They were fascists, not socialists.

The only thing socialist about fascism is that fascism borrowed a few key words and concepts from Marxist political theory that had great currency in the day. Hitler and the Nazis were simply throwing around words and concepts that were part of contemporary German street politics and beer hall oratory. The word socialist was one such. This was nothing more than a way of laying claim to a large group of highly dissatisfied people that the word resonated with. It was part of Hitler’s path to power.

Misappropriating words and concepts and altering their meanings for political purposes was a hallmark of Nazi propaganda. You seem to be all too willing to allow them to do that. As pointed out, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a republic, and power sure as hell doesn’t belong to the people. Words like socialist and fascist have specific meanings. Calling a dog a cat doesn’t turn it into one.

@Greg:

Calling a dog a cat doesn’t turn it into one.

Correct, and that’s why your attempt to make the Nazi’s right wing will never work.

@Pete: What do you expect from someone who once supported another lefty’s claim that our Founders were really socialists who believed in wealth redistribution and that Patrick Henry wrote, Agrarian Justice and then posted a link to “prove” the other lefty’s claim? Unfortunately for them, the posted link clearly showed Thomas Paine’s name in the byline so even someone who was ignorant of that aspect of our history could have clearly seen that Patrick Henry was not the author of the pamphlet. The pamphlet was also written in 1795 so it had ZERO to do with the founding of the country.

@Pete: Greg isn’t lying. He really believes that what he writes is the truth. He just lacks the ability to see truth and place it in perspective.

The Nazi’s have been correctly and generally recognized as fascists and right-wing extremists since the early 1930s. No one who’s been paying attention for long is going to be fooled by recent revisionists. Perhaps better luck can be had by twisting the minds of a younger generation. Much can be accomplished by razor-blading pages you don’t like from high school history books.

@Randy: A couple of definitions of right wing. Notice the reference to conservative.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%20wing
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right-wing

Some definitions of conservative. Notice the references to opposing change and favoring traditional values.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservatism

Taken in the context of the current debate, if Hitler and the NAZI’s were right wing they would have embraced conservative ideals, i.e. opposition to change etc., which means they would have embraced the liberal democracies of the period in their case the Weimar Republic. Now you are probably asking yourself- WTF and for good reason. Anyone with knowledge of that period in history knows it’s the exact OPPOSITE of what happened.

@Greg:

Much can be accomplished by razor-blading pages you don’t like from high school history books.

Or you can take the progressive Democrat route (espoused by their fellow socialists, including Alinsky, Lenin and Marx) where you infiltrate and take control of the education system with socialist-agenda indoctrination-minded (ahem) “educators” and revise history with a heavy hand towards the leftist and anti American propaganda. Instead of taking a razor blade to the textbooks, you replace textbooks with new ones written by “progressive” publishers intended to fill the minds of America’s youth with far left dogma.

@another+vet:

Hey AV ,

One of your definitions for conservative includes the word “reactionary”. By any measure, I’m a pretty traditional and conservative guy. But I’m not a reactionary. I’m not “opposing political or social liberalization or reform”. I think most who identify as “right wing” probably are. Conservatives seem to have a habit of confusing what has passed into tradition in the current age with ideas and concepts they would have vehemently disagreed with when they were new. When I was younger, I remember getting sh*t from a bunch of biker types in a bar for putting Nirvana on a juke box more used to playing Lynryd Skynryd. Now Nirvana is considered “classic rock” and all those old timers probably believe they always liked it. I think a lot of conservatives like to take credit for ideas that were shoved down their throats by liberals. Eventually, once they taste good enough.

Just a few other thoughts:

Dr John likes to blame all liberals for the deaths of two police officers by a madman because they “perpetuated a lie” . So I assume he is accepting responsibility for all the attempts on the President’s life and should be held responsible in the case of successful attempt.

Dr John is apparently very anti-democratic in his belief system regarding civilian control of the police.

Dr John is apparently very much against the rights of freedom of speech, peaceably assemble and petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Using the deaths of honorable men to score partisan points. Ugly.

The man who murdered those two police officers in Brooklyn is a cold blooded and possibly insane murderer. The victims are innocent heroes and the murderer deserves nothing but our collective disgust for his act. I am comfortable calling a murderer a murderer regardless of the color of the suspect or victim’s skin, or whether one or the other wore a uniform. Dr John and his acolytes, I am sadly forced to conclude, cannot. Dr John is cheerleader for his cause, and nothing more. He can’t bring himself to condemn the death of a black man killed on video, but he’ll call half of America murderers if the victim is to his liking. He’s a cheerleader. For those who are looking to bend down and be part of the pyramid, let him climb on your back.

@Tom: Modern liberalism is a far cry from traditional liberalism. Traditional liberalism advocates small government whose primary responsibility is protecting people’s rights, free markets, balanced budgets, and allowing people to live their own lives as long as it doesn’t endanger others. If they had my picture, you’d find it next to that definition.

@Greg: The only thing socialist about fascism is the socialism. I find it hilarious how socialists try to distance themselves from other socialists that practice socialism.

@Tom:

Dr John likes to blame all liberals for the deaths of two police officers by a madman because they “perpetuated a lie” . So I assume he is accepting responsibility for all the attempts on the President’s life and should be held responsible in the case of successful attempt.

In the case of the President, there are laws which punish any such threat against his life, either by print, statement or action. If the same was true of threats against police, Farrakhan, Sharpton and some others would be in jail and Obama and Holder would be co-conspirators.

Dr John is apparently very anti-democratic in his belief system regarding civilian control of the police.

Does civilian control include being able to execute the police on a whim? I think that is the action in contention.

Dr John is apparently very much against the rights of freedom of speech, peaceably assemble and petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

It is universally agreed that freedom of speech ends where it put lives in jeopardy; yelling “FIRE” in a theater, for instance. Or, inciting violence against innocent citizens, their businesses or the police. When cops are killed as a direct result of the rhetoric (based entirely on lies, by the way) it is apparent (or should be) how dangerous such rhetoric is and should be condemned by all, not just conservatives.

Are you by any chance familiar with the term “war on women”? Exactly what actual violence or abuse by conservatives against women is this phrase addressing? Lying to incite public response, action, violence and murder is a left wing staple.

Using the deaths of honorable men to score partisan points. Ugly.

How about using the deaths of dishonorable men to score partisan political points, create an issue that does not exist, incite violence against persons and property and, ultimately, cause the deaths of two totally innocent officers? How about inventing a case of rape to score partisan points? How about invoking racism where there is none to score partisan points? Come on, Tom. You can’t change your stripes that easily.

@another+vet: Actually, Thomas Jefferson was considered a liberal in his day. Manifest destiny was a liberal concept. Since then, liberals have continued to move so far left that they have exceeded reality.

@Bill, #32:

The only thing socialist about fascism is the socialism. I find it hilarious how socialists try to distance themselves from other socialists that practice socialism.

Social Security and Medicare are not built on fascist concepts. Nor does the fact that a nation has such important social programs mean that it’s a socialist state. The people who created and who support such programs are not far left radicals.

@Randy: In those days our Founders would have been considered liberal and the Tories would have been considered conservative. Now it is reversed. Those backing our Founder’s beliefs are conservative and those backing big government are liberal.

@Tom: I do remember when folks came here and blamed Sarah Palin for Gabby Gifford’s being shot even though the shooter was someone whose profile would be that of someone who would NOT have listened to Palin or any other conservative. The shooter in this case was someone who was part of the anti-cop rhetoric that has been rampant for the last few months. And just to refresh everyone’s memory, here is the original FA thread:

Congresswoman Giffords in Critical Condition After Shooting In Arizona – Shooter Identified

So if I understand this correctly, it is not okay for people to blame the left for the shooting of these two officers but it was perfectly acceptable to blame Palin for the Gifford’s shooting?

@Tom: 30.

He can’t bring himself to condemn the death of a black man killed on video,

Such a silly attempt to equate the death of someone that is breaking the law and attempts to fight the police officers and because of a medical problem dies, with two police officers sitting in a patrol car enforcing the law and is shot by someone that they don’t even have a conversation with. (notice I didn’t mention race or color).

@another+vet:

I do remember when folks came here and blamed Sarah Palin for Gabby Gifford’s being shot even though the shooter was someone whose profile would be that of someone who would NOT have listened to Palin or any other conservative.

AV, I think we can both point to knee jerk reactions to incidents like this. They are not hard to find it you’re looinf for them. Can I just point out to you that Dr John blamed not only protesters who allegedly used anti-police rhetoric, but all liberals for the horrific murders of those two officers. That would include millions of people, the vast majority who were not directly involved in protests.

The shooter in this case was someone who was part of the anti-cop rhetoric that has been rampant for the last few months.

I don’t know all the facts, but let’s remember this man murdered a women a state away before he killed the cops. This sounds like the act of a desperate crazy person, not some sort of partisan statement, as some of the right would have us believe.

So if I understand this correctly, it is not okay for people to blame the left for the shooting of these two officers but it was perfectly acceptable to blame Palin for the Gifford’s shooting?

Funny to see that post again. What happened to all those people?

My point is no one can have it both ways. I’m sure you do not appreciate when someone labels all Tea Party protesters as racists who want harm to come to the President because he’s black. So I think you can understand why someone else might not appreciate being lumped in with a cold blooded murderer. Generalizations are probably best avoided on all sides.

@Bill:

Bill, rather than going around in circles with you again, let me call time out and wish you and all my conservative friends Happy Holidays Merry Christmas. With the economy growing, the deficit shirking and gas prices falling, I’m sure we all have much to be thankful for. My personal holiday wish for you is that you fight the urge to fall in with the chorus for easy back-slaps. You’ll be a more interesting conservative for it.

@Tom:

I’m sure we all have much to be thankful for

No. 1 on that list has to be that as of Jan 20, 2017 we will likely get an American to be our president again.

In 1919 a man was distributing leaflets encouraging men of draft age to oppose acceptance of ”the draft.”
The unanimous Supreme Court decision is often quoted in part where Oliver Wendell Holmes II stated that it was criminally liable to shout FIRE (falsely) in a crowded theater.
Today I doubt a case like that would even win, much unanimously.
Yes, Eric holder, BHObama, deBlasio, Sharpton and others blew their dog whistles loudly for all to hear:
The crowd even put that between-the-lines message into a chant:

What do we want?
Dead cops.
When do we want them?
Now!

Rousing up the rabble was the purpose of all these speakers.
Then they got what they wanted.
So, naturally now is the time to parse each word and ”prove” none of them ever overtly ordered this act.
But Obama is a student, not just of Cloward-Piven and Saul Ailinsky.
He also learned from Rahm Emanuel when he proffered that a liberal must never let a crisis go to waste.
Obama wanted single payer and just might get it.
He also wants a large FEDERAL security force over civilians as big as our military was when he first took office.
He might get that, too.

@Tom: Merry Christmas to you and yours. Sure, I have much to be thankful for, but Obama is still in office doing whatever he can to reverse those trends.

@retire05: Greg still won’t admit that President Obola lied when he told America you can keep your insurance and/or doctor!! If he’s put in a corner his only counter is to blame Republicans or Bush!!

@Tom:

My point is no one can have it both ways. I’m sure you do not appreciate when someone labels all Tea Party protesters as racists who want harm to come to the President because he’s black.

Which is exactly what has happened. Tea Party protestors have been accused of being racists big time. And now there is a pleading of being reasonable to those on the left? It sounds to me like stacking the deck. In other words, don’t do to me as I’ve done to you? Doesn’t cut it with me. Sounds like a power play and hypocrisy or like bullies on a playground.

Can I just point out to you that Dr John blamed not only protesters who allegedly used anti-police rhetoric, but all liberals for the horrific murders of those two officers. That would include millions of people, the vast majority who were not directly involved in protests

.

Kind of like how the Dems blamed everyone with conservative values for the Gifford’s shooting despite the fact that the shooter had leftist beliefs? Or about how DICK Durbin comparing the military to Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler? Or how about John Kerry comparing the military to people terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night? Or how about John Kerry telling young people that if they didn’t get an education that they would end up in Iraq implying like that those of us who served there were too fucking stupid to be as “smart” as leftists like himself?

I have little tolerance for hypocrisy. When you compare the Gifford’s shooting to this, the left has shown it big time. Back in the day, I blasted the left for calling for the impeachment of Nixon for lying to the American people while giving a free ride to Clinton for perjury. Both deserved impeachment. At the same time, I blasted the right for condemning Clinton (D) for adultery while giving a free ride to Henry Hyde (R) (my Congressional rep at the time) for the same.

The left wants to have it both ways big time and this is a prime example. And I do recognize there is a difference between the left and liberals just like I recognize there is a difference between the right and conservatives.

With the economy growing, the deficit shirking and gas prices falling,

The GDP growth for the last year is still nothing to brag about. Quite dismal for a recovery when you think about it. Please provide evidence for what Obama has done to lower gas prices or to stimulate the economy.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

@Greg: 13

it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the
coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that
party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to
complete destruction – to Bolshevism,

And that’s exactly what happened, they went left, to utter destruction. Remember?

@Rich+Wheeler: 20

The Nazis were neither far left nor far right–they were extremists whose primary goal

Rich, while I don’t disagree that one of their primary goals was to eliminate Jews, they had some other ‘primary goals’ also. To rule the country was one, to have the masses support the masses was another. You will note that even Hitler did not mess with the Superrich, just as neither party does today. see the Rothchilds, for example.

@Tom: 30

So I assume he is accepting responsibility for all the attempts on the President’s life

I read and watch the News every day and have not heard of even a single attempt on the President’s life. Would you refer me to a list of these incidents? All I can find is a list of alleged ‘threats’ and no ‘attempts’. Maybe you have inside knowledge.

With the assassination of two of their own the New York police have finally awaked to the true nature of the Marxist agenda. However the question of whether the Sheeple will ever have a similar epiphany remains unanswered.