It appears as though the days of civility and integrity in journalism are long gone. On March 1, National Journal’s Ron Fournier, formerly the Washington bureau chief at the Associated Press, took to Twitter to express his dissatisfaction with government sequestration, suggesting that President Obama:
Can handle Bin laden, not Boehner? He may be POTUS, but Obama incapable of “a Jedi mind meld.”
Fournier continued his violent rhetoric in a follow-up tweet, suggesting that, “Bin Laden didn’t compromise. Handled him pretty well.”
The tweets, which have not been deleted, were discovered by the website Gawker.
Fournier apparently is upset at the inaction by President Obama over the sequester, and suggests that killing Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) might be the best solution. To suggest that the Speaker of the House should be eliminated in the same manner as the world’s worst terrorist shows a new low for a supposedly objective journalist.
Rather than apologize or issue a retraction for his offensive commentary, the tweets remain on Fournier’s account. As someone who formerly represented the Associated Press as its Washington bureau chief, one would think Fournier would have both the decency and the professional dignity to refrain from such horrendous commentary.
It remains to be seen if the National Journal will take appropriate disciplinary action.
**UPDATE** Earlier version of blog incorrectly stated that Ron Fournier had deleted tweets in question when in fact they are still on his account.
Fournier also needs to bone up on his Star Trek and Star Wars
@Tom: @<a
I keep reading you on the left saying, when it comes to the Democrats attempting gun grab “Nothing to see here. Move on.” indicating that people are just getting hyped over something you consider silly. Yet sheriffs, police officers and other LEOs all across this nation are making public statements that they will NOT enforce any law that violates the 2nd Amendment. Can you name a time before in our history where LEOs are speaking out against something that has yet to happen because I damn sure can’t.
@retire05:
There’s a gun grab? People are coming to take all our guns? News to me. Prove it.
Yes, it is difficult to remember LEOs speaking out against something imaginary they and others have made up in their heads that’s not going to happen. That is true. But, heck, people love to get on TV, and this is one safe way to get some backslaps in deep Red States, so good for them.
TOM
anything new under the snow?
like some positive thoughts
to benefit other, instead of that,
you are too much influence by the doom and gloom
we hear from obama and democrats
@Tom:
There is an attempted gun grab going on by Democrats. Have you not read the list of gun that Dianne Feinstein, a hypocrite who herself had a concealed carry permit, has listed as guns she would make illegal? Hell, there are a lot of guns on that list, written by stupid people who wouldn’t know an assault weapon if they fell over one, that are owned by people who are collectors, hunters, competititve shooters.
And what about the idiots on your side of the aisle that tell women they should just vomit, or pee on themselves, to stop a rapist. Or that they should just make sure they are in “safe” zones, you know, gun free zones like Sandy Hook.
The goal by your side of the aisle doesn’t not seem to be to punish those who commit crimes with guns, but to disarm citizens who already obey all the current gun laws and make them helpless against criminals who don’t give a damn about the gun laws now.
@retire05:
Proof requires evidence, not diarrhea of the keyboard. And as I suspected, you have nothing.
An assault weapons ban is not the same as a “gun grab”, the forcible taking of peoples’ already owned guns. But I suspect you know that. The question is, when an assault weapons ban is already so unpopular on the Right, why you feel the need to “gin” it up? Does this mean the truth just isn’t dire enough to fit into your ongoing narrative?
Facts. Evidence. Are you familar with the term “grandfathered”? Let’s look at exactly what Feinstein’s proposed legislation has to say about “assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence”:
Strange that they term the very guns you claim they are coming to confiscate “grandfathered”.
You really have proven yourself to be highly unsophisticated in your understanding of politics. Gun control is not a winning political issue for Obama. I am not saying he is not personally for it; I am sure he is and always has been. But politically speaking, it offers him nothing. Anyone in favor of it is already on his side.It hurts rural and red state Democrats. He has absolutely not made it a priority before Sandy Hook. This was thrust upon him. And I give him credit, because this is political capital he is spending. Or, if it doesn’t go through, it’s a loss he didn’t need to absorb. But keep making a fool out of yourself by preaching President Grabby Guns.
Thematically speaking, your post couldn’t have been more appropriate to illustrating the points I’ve made on this thread: dishonest people making shrill, hyperbolic false accusations designed to appeal to the worst possible fears and emotions. You’ve demonstrated that in spades. Thank you. I wonder sometimes, do people think we’re in league? that you’re just my Howdy Doody puppet, my simpleton foil?
@Tom:
That was all I was saying. We are all guilty of doing it, despite maybe even our best effort to not do so.
TOM
WAIT A MINUTE, YOU CAN’T SPEAK FOR OBAMA BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT HIM,
AND THE PUPPET IS YOU WITH YOUR INSULTS, YOU SURE TO GET THE SAME BACK AT YOU,
AND DESERVE IT,
NO ONE IS YOU’RE PUPPET HERE
@Tom: Ret05 Your Howdy Doody puppet, I picture her more as a 73 year old Clarabell The Clown.
@Richard Wheeler:
Ha!
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Good point. Can Obama speak for Obama? http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/flashback-obama-i-will-not-take-your-guns-away
@Tom:
Since you have already seen the list, why do you play stupid? Or does that just come so naturally that it is automatic?
Define “assault” weapon.
Yet the threat seems real enough to hundreds of sheriffs all across the nation that they are speaking out about it. Of course, we all know that the left have no problem lying. You know, things like how health insurance costs will go down and if you like your health care provider you can keep them. Or maybe the whopper about how lines at the airports are going to be 100, 200 times worse with sequester. Perhaps how security guards at national sites, like the Smithonian, were going to be laid off? Or maybe even the one that White House tours had to be ended due to staffing cutbacks, when in actuality, White House tours are conducted by volunteers?
Simpleton foils, like yourself, just swallow whatever Koolaide Obama puts out, even though he has not kept one promise he made to you. You accept that 8% unemployment is normal, and having a workforce that had been reduced to decades old numbers is nothing to be alarmed about. One in six on some sort of welfare program, more Americans on food stamps than ever before, but hey, Obama won’t take our guns away, he just wants to put restrictions on them so you can’t have them, can’t buy them and damn sure can’t buy ammunition for them.
The best term I can think for you, tom is loyalist.
@Richard Wheeler:
And that comment gained you what, Richard?
@Tom:
That was then, and then we had Sandy Hook and to paraphrase Eric Holder, Obama will never let a crisis go to waste.
Oh, and he also promised that he would close Gitmo. How’s that working out?
Richard Wheeler
that was vicious,
shame on you,
you are not in your own house where you can spit on the floor
no, you are in CONSERVATIVES LAND HERE,
AND YOU INSULT THE CONSERVATIVES LIKE THAT,
YOU ARE JUST A LIBTARD WHO DON’T COME CLOSE TO THE KNEE LEVEL IN INTELLIGENCE,
YOUR WORDS CALL FOR AN APOLOGY, TO THE RECIPIENT,
OR ELSE,
FURTHER MORE, HOW DARE YOU COMPLIMENT TOM FOR BEING THE SAME ASS AS YOU.
@retire05:
Wow, you don’t give up.Here’s your statement again:
Your claim, your burden of proof. Prove it. This is the second time I’ve asked. There is no more confusion, no more ambiguity. I want unambiguous evidence. Just post a link, please. Prove the claim, or prove you’re full of crap.
@ilovebeeswarzone: VICIOUS?? Clarabell wae a sweetheart– Reto5 and I are old enough to remember Howdy Doody’s sidekick.
@Tom:
You have read Dianne Feinstein’s bill, and I assume the gun list that goes along with it.
What is it about “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? The Second Amendment doesn’t say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, except for those that certain people think are unacceptable. The authors of the Bill of Rights placed NO restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. None. Yet, you would gladly give up just a little bit of the Second Amendment for some false sense of security.
@retire05:
I’m clicking on this, but the link isn’t working. Click, click. I’m not going to the evidence, to the proof, of Retire5’s claim. Click, click. I’m starting to suspect Retire5 has no evidence or proof. Click, click. I’m starting to think she’d full of crap – again – and that I’ve proven her to be a liar – again. Click,click. I wonder how many more times Howdy Doody will embarrass herself on this topic? Click, click.
TOM
YOU ARE A PUNK
GET LOST
@Tom:
From the left leaning Atlantic:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/dianne-feinstein-gun-list/61374/
How many of those weapons are fully automatic?
Now, do you also need a link to the Second Amendment?
@Tom:
And from 2004, 9 years ago:
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-Amendment-Mr-and-Mrs-America-turn-them-2813319.php
From the woman who, at the time, had a concealed carry permit.
Ah… desperation…. @retire05:
That article is titled “Here’s the List of 158 Guns That Dianne Feinstein Wants to Ban in 2013”. So one can only assume that you’ve retreated to the defense that you don’t understand the difference between a gun ban and gun confiscation. Let’s examine the box you’ve placed yourself in. You had two choices, admit you’re a vile liar or admit (pretend?) you’re irretrievably stupid, and you went with the latter (even though, I hate to break it to you, we all know the former is true). Your tactics make me thankful you’re not in the military.
@Tom: @Tom:
And what kind of laws are Washington State and Colorado trying to put into place? Gee, just have women who about to be raped vomit or pee on themselves. Yeah, that should discourage their rapist? How about Missouri who wants to turn in every Missourian that owns a firearm to the federal government.
What do you gain by that? Do you think it makes you look big and tough? Or is it that you just can’t tolerate anyone that disagrees with you? News flash Tom, you’re nothing more than a pissant. Irritating but not valuable for anything else.
@retire05:
Boo hoo. Now I’m a bully? You refuse to prove – or retract – YOUR CLAIM. What other conclusions do we have, but those I’ve laid out? Prove it or admit you’re full of crap. It’s your decision. Don’t lay on me the fact that you’ve choose to comically evade the question and make yourself look ridiculous.It’s all on you.
@Tom:
Nothing I could say, or link to, would sate you. I have asked you before, do you need a link to the Second Amendment? And if you do, do you need someone to explain it to you because you clearly don’t seem to understand it.
What exactly do you think Dianne Feinstein meant when she said “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them ALL in.”?
@retire05:
Lord…. Um, how about a link I’ve requested multiple times proving your claim that Democrats are attempting a “gun grab”? How simple is that? That’s what I want. That would sate me just fine.
What kind of a nut are you, by the way? You seem to think that everyone is half as smart as you while proving you’re twice as stupid as everyone.
This is my last post on this topic. Thanks for the laughs.
TOM
yes he is smarter than you,
and you’re getting more like a mad idiot the more you continue.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
don’t be mad, little bee.
TOM
I said you cannot speak for OBAMA BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT HIM,
FURTHER MORE YOU HAVENT YET UNDERSTOOD HIS INTENT AND AGENDA, BECAUSE
HE ALONE POSESS IT AND RELEASE IT JUST A BIT AS HE GET TO ADVANCE HIS AGENDA,
A BIT AT THE TIME, AS THE CHILDREN ARE GROWING UP
RON FOURNIER ‘S WORDS MAKE ME THINK THAT BREITHARD
S DEATH WAS SUSPICIOUS, AND RON FOURNIER’S MINDSET COULD HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED TO KILL BREITHARD ON THE STREET WHERE HE WAS WALKING,
IT WAS SUGGEST THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A WAY TO KILL HIM AND NEVER BE CAUGHT ,
THE SUSPECT THEORY NEVER WAS CHALLENGE