Monday, December 07, 2009

Disagree with libs, get a price put on your head

Liberal Group Puts Bounty on Head of Chamber of Commerce CEO

Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue is a wanted man -- at least according to the liberal activist group that's put a de facto bounty on his head.

A network of liberal groups known as Velvet Revolution started an ad campaign offering $200,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the man whose trade organization has become a thorn in the side of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.

The group is not leveling any specific charges of criminal behavior. Rather, it is casting a wide net, fishing for any whistleblowers from Donohue's past who might come forward with allegations of wrongdoing. The campaign against the Chamber was launched in response to the group's opposition to climate change legislation and health care reform, and its plan to spend $100 million lobbying against these and other initiatives.


The message is clear: "Oppose us and we will stop at nothing to utterly destroy you."

Not that they have a tyrannical bent or anything.

33 comments:

Subvet said...

Butbutbut, isn't it the conservatives that are haters?

Lauren Pope said...

Fatwa?

Chad Tonka said...

Butbutbut, isn't it the conservatives that are haters?

No way, conservatives would never resort to this kind of invective and hyperbole.

Ooops, sorry, just dropped this. Let me make sure it goes away:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=37105081

SegaMon said...

Although I disagree with some of the tone and/or content that the signs showed in the link you provided, you are comparing apples to oranges. Signs are a protected form of free speech (and should be encouraged as long as they do not INCITE violence).

However, Christina posted a story that is completely different in nature! That is, holding signs is much different then placing a monetary reward for digging and finding out dirt about somebody.

Chad Tonka said...

Oh I see. So if somebody had posted the "wanted" message in the form of a sign, then everything would be okay.

SegaMon said...

*rolls eyes* ... you forgot to mention that an entire organized group has put up a $200,000 dollar reward in attempt to dig up dirt on an individual PURELY because of his opinions. Do you not think that this is MUCH different than individuals holding up signs that state a position or belief?

Chad Tonka said...

Sega

It is difficult to tell if you are either a total ideologue who will bash anything you perceive as even remotely connected with the word “liberal,” or if you are just a contrarian who will argue for positions that are completely wrong.

First off, you have no idea whether or not this is even a real group, or just somebody sitting in his mother’s basement trying to impress people. You have no idea whether or not this “group” could actually come through with the money, or if it is simply a rhetorical move. Second, using bounties to attempt to gain information is not that odd of a technique – the police and FBI do this every day. Third, by your own argument, this organization (if it is even real) is covered by the free speech doctrine you assigned to the teabagger protestors.

Finally, you would have to be so completely blinded by ideology to actually claim that holding up a sign with the President of the USA altered to look like Hitler, and adorned with swastikas, is somehow NOT an incitement to violence, and a website with a likely fake bounty that no rational person would take seriously is.

Chad

Kathy said...

Yeah, liberals **never** compared Pres. Bush to Hitler.

Chad Tonka said...

Kathy,

Um, missing the point. I think if one looks hard enough, you will find that every world leader has at some point been compared to Hitler by somebody.

That's not my point.

Chad

SegaMon said...

I'm not supporting comparing any US president to Hitler or to the Nazi regime. I am simply against a PRIVATE organization placing a bounty on a private citizen purely because of his opinions and/or beliefs.

The police, FBI, CIA, etc are government organizations and it is their job to protect the public. Thus, if they have substantial reason to suspect an individual of potential dangerous activity, they have every right to place bounties.

I do not support a conservative group placing a bounty on Howard Dean to find out any "dirt" on him either.

Sure, I suppose it's legal to place a theoretical "bounty" on someone by private citizens. However, it's very dirt tactics and it is much worse that waving signs around that do not specifically incite violence.

Kathy said...

Chad,

So you admit that liberals were inciting violence against a sitting President, by portraying him over and over again as Hitler.

Chad Tonka said...

Kathy

So you admit that liberals were inciting violence against a sitting President, by portraying him over and over again as Hitler.

No, and I’m not sure how you inferred that from what I wrote. Look, not every representation of Hitler is an incitement to violence. For example, when Mel Brooks plays Hitler in “The Producers,” he is not inciting violence. Rather, he is being satirical. Images can be used for satirical purposes, as well as more unctuous reasons as well. I’m willing to bet my next year’s salary that the teabagger in that picture is NOT being satirical. He really believes that Obama is a dictator, and since he thinks Hitler was a dictator too, it’s a small leap to Obama = Hitler.

Also, Kathy, you would have to explain how someone holding that sign would NOT expect some kind of violence, given the deliberately provocative nature of the image.

Chad

Kathy said...

"Finally, you would have to be so completely blinded by ideology to actually claim that holding up a sign with the President of the USA altered to look like Hitler, and adorned with swastikas, is somehow NOT an incitement to violence..."

Therefore, "holding up a sign with the President of the USA altered to look like Hitler, and adorned with swastikas" is "an incitement to violence" -- your words, not mine.

Chad Tonka said...

Kathy

I think the only thing you’re demonstrating is that you don’t understand satire.

Here, let me make it easy for you. If someone held up a sign of George Bush dressed as Benito Mussolini at a No Child Left Behind rally, yes, that is an incitement to violence. Whether or not that person was a liberal. Capisci?

Chad

SegaMon said...

Chad, I don't see how your statments, as quoted by Kathy, is satire. Doesn't make sense how liberals comparing Bush to Hitler is satirical while conservatives comparing Obama to Hitler it is an attempt to incite violence. Sounds like a double standard. Oh well... maybe I'm just dense.

SegaMon said...

In the first sentence, "is" should have been "were."

Chad Tonka said...

Chad

Maybe you missed the post right above yours. Please re-read.

kthxbai

Chad Tonka said...

Ooops, previous post should have started "Sega" not "Chad"

xoxo

Kathy said...

Ok, so I guess that liberals (or anyone else) *were* inciting violence against George Bush, a sitting President, by portraying him over and over again as Hitler.

Chad Tonka said...

Kathy

How about before posting anything else you look up the word "satire."

As I said earlier, representing someone as another person or image is not an incitement to violence per se. It's important to take intention into account.

Chad

Kathy said...

Chad, talking to you is like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.

You first said, "Finally, you would have to be so completely blinded by ideology to actually claim that holding up a sign with the President of the USA altered to look like Hitler, and adorned with swastikas, is somehow NOT an incitement to violence..."
Which means that "holding up a sign with the POTUS altered to look like Hitler and adorned with swastikas IS an incitement to violence" (just taking your negative statement and turning it into a positive).

But then you said "not every representation of Hitler is an incitement to violence."

So, which is it??

FWIW, I don't think that likening someone to Hitler is an incitement to violence -- but you claimed in the first comment I quoted that anyone would have to be "blinded by ideology" to say that such a likeness is "somehow NOT an incitement to violence."

Chad Tonka said...

Kathy

I think in your desire to catch me in some kind of contradiction, you are missing the point of what I said earlier. Let me lay out what I have been saying in all my previous posts, since I get the suspicion you’re not really reading what I’m writing. Plus you hijacked the discussion I was having with Sega:

1. Holding up a sign with Obama dressed up as Hitler at a public rally is trying to provoke violence.
2. Someone posting a (likely fake) bounty on a (likely fake) website is not.
3. Sega said that latter is dirty politics, while the former is protected and presumably endorsed.
4. My point was to show that Sega’s distinction does not hold much water, even though he seems to insist that it does.

As I said before, Mel Brooks pretending to be Hitler is satire. The teabagger is not. In this case, it matters little whether or not either person identifies as “liberal” or “conservative.”

Chad

SegaMon said...

Chad, one cannot "hijack" a discussion between us if this conversation is 100% public and of which anyone can choose to post. If you wish to have a private conversation about this, you can always message and/or email me.

Kathy said...

1. I disagree that holding up a sign of anyone dressed as Hitler is necessarily trying to provoke violence against that person. If you have any evidence that a caricature of Pres. Bush or Pres. Obama as Hitler provoked violence against him or against his supporters, please present it -- 9 years of recent history should be ample.

2. I don't think anyone said that it was "provoking violence" to post the bounty -- just that they were trying to dig up personal dirt to legally (criminally or civilly) bury him, because of his opinions.

Lilliput said...

To be honest guys the hitler posters come as a result of violence ie after bush starting two wars killing thousands for no reason except world domination then you can see why someone would liken him to hitler.

Kathy said...

Lilliput -- why don't you be honest -- if Bush started a war for "world domination" don't you think he would have started some place else other than the hell-hole that is Afghanistan?? The only people who want to be there are those that were born there, and terrorists who can hide in the hills because it is so remote. If we were going after "world domination" we could have started talks about combining Mexico and the US, since our southern border is so porous that there are millions of illegal aliens in our country right now -- some of whom are dangerous and many of whom want to reclaim the southern portions of the US that used to belong to Mexico. Or we could have started talks about combining with Canada, our neighbors to the north. Or taking over numerous small countries that would have provided a much bigger benefit with a much smaller cost than Af-freakin'-ghanistan and I-bloody-raq! And we could have gone in with scorched-earth policies with high civilian casualties, completely decimating these countries, had we just wanted world domination. In fact, all we would have to do would be to nuke Mecca at the height of Ramadan (or whenever the Muslim pilgrimage is held), and a few other choice sites, and we would have had much greater access to oil-bearing countries, had we just been going after "world domination."

I'm not going to defend every policy of Pres. Bush, nor even his decision to go to war; however, your statement is false and (to borrow Chad's expression) doesn't hold water.

Chad Tonka said...

Kathy

I disagree that holding up a sign of anyone dressed as Hitler is necessarily trying to provoke violence against that person.

Kathy, you really take the cake! That will go down in the Annals of Wingnuttiest Things Ever Said as one of the top all-time entries. Why on god’s green earth would a teabagger hold up a sign with Obama dressed as Hitler if he were not trying to incite some form of violence? Do you think that’s a legitimate form of political communication?

I don't think anyone said that it was "provoking violence" to post the bounty -- just that they were trying to dig up personal dirt to legally (criminally or civilly) bury him, because of his opinions.

Thank you for making my point.

Chad

Kathy said...

Chad, was this inciting violence or a legitimate form of political communication?

Kathy said...

Also, Hitler did a lot of things people like me don't like -- murdering millions of people who were declared non-human or sub-human or who otherwise should not be allowed to live is probably top of the list; his attempt at taking over the world is another. But the one I think of most in the context of today's political climate, is socialism. When I see things portraying Obama as Hitler, I think of his socialist policies which much of the left like and want to be in America.

Since Bush wasn't so apparent a supporter of socialism (though, believe me, I did *not* like a lot of the stuff that went on under his administration!), I would expect that people would associate Bush-as-Hitler depictions as being either a murderer of innocent people (as in starting a war in which civilians died; I doubt that civilians were targeted, except as terrorists were using them as human shields); or as Lilliput said, world domination.

Chad, what association do you think people are "supposed" to make when they see Obama-as-Hitler posters, according to conservatives? That he is a ruthless murderer? a wanna-be dictator? a socialist? striving for world domination? or something else? What association were people "supposed" to make when liberals depicted Bush as Hitler?

How does this association (for either) incite violence, and in what way was violence carried out against Bush-as-Hitler? Also, what way do you expect violence to be carried out by Tea Partiers? Violence? The March on Washington didn't even have litterbugs!

[Please note that "tea-baggers" is a slur and offensive, so please stop using it.]

Lilliput said...

Kathy we were lucky that he didn't have enough time left to carry on and the fact that you can't just attack a country for no reason. He made up the weapons of mass distruction and now the rest of us will have to deal with the real weapons that people will create because they have been attacked. What has obama done so far to be likened to hitler? He has just started his term.

Lilliput said...

Kathy we were lucky that he didn't have enough time left to carry on and the fact that you can't just attack a country for no reason. He made up the weapons of mass distruction and now the rest of us will have to deal with the real weapons that people will create because they have been attacked. What has obama done so far to be likened to hitler? He has just started his term.

Kathy said...

Obama has put this country on the fast track to socialism. Hitler's party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party."

Saddam Hussein *did* have WMDs -- he used them numerous times on his own people. The intelligence was the best that we had at the time, even if it was faulty. If it was faulty.

Chad Tonka said...

Obama has put this country on the fast track to socialism.

Kathy, as I've said before, you obviously have no idea what "socialism" means.

Hitler's party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party."

Wow, so you used the word "socialism" twice, in two radically different ways, in order to establish some kind of (dubious) equivalency. This barely qualifies as kindergarten-level logic.

Chad