 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! March 29, 2010 The Lone Gunmen?By GreyhawkAnyone recognize these guys?
Read on, you'll see why I ask... This sign sums up everything many people fear about the Tea Party movement:
If you're having a hard time reading it, here's a clearer version of it, along with a "sister sign."
Those pictures were posted online on March 20, the day of the Tea Party protests against the health care bill (now law) in Washington, D.C., and made their way from blogs, message boards, and virtually every other type of web page to the mainstream media. Here's the New York Times' coverage from March 26:
Unfortunately for New York Times readers, the editors didn't provide the full story on the "racist and homophobic taunts and jeers" - many such accounts of the day had already been proven to be incorrect, or based on half truths and exaggerations well before the Times editors hit the publish button. (They could benefit from the old military adage that first reports are always wrong.) As yet unclaimed rewards have subsequently been offered for proof of other allegations - I mention this by way of acknowledging awareness of related facts before moving along. So that aside, the signs are very real, and they promise very real violence. Theirs is not a simple statement that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. Given location and context there's no other reasonable interpretation of their message than this: if Senator Scott Brown can't stop the House of Representatives from passing the health care bill, we're going to start shooting. Yes, reasonable people will see the message is absurd, but combined with the second sign depicting a donkey "giving birth" to a Hitler-mustached (and presumably socialist) Obama, it's not unreasonable to be concerned that the promised shooting could be aimed at the President of the United States. And there's good reason to take that threat seriously. While a true "gun nut" might speculate why a weapon other than a Browning (or at least a clearly identifiable model Browning) was chosen to illustrate the point, the finished product displays a dedication and commitment beyond that of the average Tea Party protestor (whose typically crude, hastily hand written posters are cited alternately as proof of "grass roots" activism or shadowy "astroturfing"). But whether you're a Tea Party sympathizer or not, whether you support the health care bill, Scott Brown, your political representatives, or your neighbor's right to a different opinion or not, you should want to know (as should the Secret Service) who made those posters, and who proudly displayed them at a raucous and emotional public demonstration. Whatever their political views may be, the vast majority of Americans should (at the least) not only denounce any call for political violence but demand that the identities of those who would make such a threat be exposed. Subsequent reports of increasing hostility in American political discourse have demonstrated that concerns for escalation are not unfounded, and shouldn't be dismissed. In short: who are these people? Set aside your own political views and read on - perhaps you can help provide the answer. The first picture above offers no clue - all we see is a sign against the backdrop of the US Capitol building. It first appeared on the Think Progress blog ("ThinkProgress attended today's rally and spotted a sign threatening violence...") at 4PM (Eastern) the day of the protest, and quickly "went viral" on internet sites frequented by those predisposed to disagree with the protesters. The lack of any protestors (or anything else, for that matter) in the image might lead those who require a bit more context/evidence before drawing conclusions to raise questions - but fortunately Think Progress was able to add another image - "Update, Cameron Brenchley caught another shot of the signs: "
And there we get our first glimpse of our potential shooters - along with a link to Cameron's flickr page, where (unfortunately) there are no additional images of our "heroes" to be found. He could have more photos than what he's uploaded to his flickr page, of course. But other than what's above Think Progress doesn't reveal who Cameron Brenchley is. Fortunately, Cameron isn't as mysterious as the subjects of his photos. A quick Google search reveals he's a New Media Specialist for the U.S. House of Representatives, meaning that - among other things - he conducts blog outreach on behalf of the good folks who were inside the Capitol debating that bill. That's excellent news - even though he declared via his Twitter Feed that a different sign was the "Best tea-bag sign of day," any employee of the House of Representatives (and former US Air Force Staff Sergeant) will certainly recognize their responsibility to expose (and neutralize) the threat conveyed in those signs beyond the blogosphere - so that's no doubt been taken care of. But while we can all certainly agree that this is something that requires an official investigation, and that no one is calling for any sort of vigilante justice here, as the good folks at Jawa Report have recently demonstrated in another high-profile case, we in the blogosphere can help. There are hundreds of photos and videos of the March 20 protests on line. See here, here, here, here, and here for some "starter sets." I've been looking through them for additional photos of these particular "patriots" in the crowd, but so far with little luck. It's worth noting that most of the larger galleries of photos are on sites inclined to be sympathetic to - if not part of - the Tea Party movement, so they might not want to include pictures of that nature. (I found one exception - more on that shortly.) First, it's also worth noting that even in Cameron's photo the guys with the sign are fenced off from the other protestors. Here's a close up, click it for a full version.
It's unfortunate that the Huffington Post version linked here by the Washington Post cropped so much out of the bottom of that photo - between the two internet giants their many readers could have helped ID these guys rather than leaving everyone at the protest as a suspect. But besides seeing the fence and the faces under those signs, on examining the full version one can also note the smirking big shots are standing behind the crowd, with their signs pointing away from their fellow protestors and towards the camera. That's suspicious but not conclusive - perhaps they're simply on their way in. Or they're on the inside and the rest of the crowd isn't - who knows? I point it out only by way of saying it's already noted, and while the significance is open to interpretation it doesn't answer the central question of who these guys are. And now on to the other pictures I've been able to find. One might truly be suspicious if the only photos captured of these potential killers were provided by a House "new media guy," but these examples are from a second shooter - I found them on the flickr page of someone who blogs as the Pittsford Patriot, and who appears to be (and almost certainly is) a Tea Party supporter.
That blog has several more videos of the protests, by the way - any of which could contain additional images of our suspects. But even with dozens more photos in the flikr page, these are the only images I found of these guys. In fact, they're the only other images I've found anywhere of these guys, though once again they aren't in the crowd. (And note that two are also in Cameron's picture, with a third possible, while a fourth - guy in black hat - is perhaps just an innocent bystander, there are no images of him holding one of the signs.) So what do we have so far? Three (or maybe four, or five) guys on the fringes of a crowd toting signs that clearly advocate violence as a means to a political end. (Please spare me any argument that they're merely exercising their Constitutional rights.) Here they are again, the best images I could find, enhanced as best as I could.
Repeat: that guy in the lower right corner might not be part of the group, and was perhaps just caught in the background of their photo. Not much to go on, to be sure. So, are they "Tea Partiers"? Let me answer that one up front: I don't care. (Disclaimer: I don't even know what makes someone a "Tea Partier.") I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if these guys could make that claim - though it's worth noting that these guys' signage - in message or quality - absolutely isn't "typical" of the hundreds of others I've seen online. Likewise if I wanted to discredit the Tea Partiers (or foment violence against them) I would have to invent these guys if they didn't exist. Since either possibility leads to violence - which I absolutely oppose - I can honestly state that's why I don't care if they're Tea Partiers or "plants". These guys advocate violence, and I've spent my adult life helping to ensure domestic tranquility. The question is who are they? The internet is a big place, and somewhere out there in the wide, wide world someone knows the answer. Besides the Browning Boys themselves I can't think of anyone - regardless of political affiliation and whether they are in, out, for, opposed, or indifferent to the Tea Party - who wouldn't rather know exactly who these fellows are. That's especially obvious given that they've helped touch off an atmosphere of fear, intimidation, and insecurity throughout the country - if that New York Times editorial quoted above isn't example enough, (or the Washington Post coverage, or this AP report) do a web search for "If Brown can't stop it a Browning can" or "Tea Party signs gun violence" to see just how extensive their reach has been. But curiously enough, in spite of widespread attention (and "wariness" among House members) no one anywhere seems to be concerned over who exactly is calling for violence - even though their images have been captured. For many, "Tea Partiers" seems to be answer enough. So, you know what I know. I now call for an assist. Does anyone know who these guys are? Say so - expose them. Got a link to more photos of these guys? Want to send me more photos of our suspects? Please do. Leave a comment below (refresh the page immediately before commenting so the damn captcha isn't timed out - sorry) or email me at greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com. (Speaking of comments, don't bother turning this thread into a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of health care, the President, Congress, or the Tea Party - that's OFF TOPIC and I'll delete as soon as I can, as I will any posted addresses or phone numbers of "suspects".) If you can't contribute more intel, do what you can to spread the word - maybe you'll reach someone who can. Click the share button below, spread the word via Twitter Facebook, email, or whatever. Write your own blog post, I'll link it. Steal mine and re-post it. Who knows, maybe together we can solve a great mystery here. Can't hurt to try, right?
Peace. And... update: here's one better photo (via email from Marooned in Marin) already:
Marooned in Marin attended the protest (more photos/video here), and has been following the multiple reports of threats and violence since. And good information coming in via email from folks who were there. Many thanks!. Posted by Greyhawk / March 29, 2010 3:39 PM | Permalink 32 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
The sure do look, ah, ‘union-y’ and ‘mob-ish’. Got that eight-steak-eatin’ mafioso thug look about ‘em. Interesting article and pics.
Boy, oh, boy do I wish we had access to computers which could scan these photos against others. Everyone’s doing comparisons with other photos from the rally in question, and from other Tea Party rallies. BUT CHECK IT OUT: How about people start cross-checking photos from pro-Obama rallies, even going back a year. Or from Labor rallies. I mean COME ON, just LOOK at these dudes. I hate to stereotype but sometimes... everything about these waddling dudes screams UNION.
Your previous post on the young marine indicates whoever these guys are, someone is taking their message very seriously.
Maybe they're part of that militia group rounded up today?
"New Media Outreach"? Is that what they're calling it these days? More like "no media outrage".
I'm betting these guys are back in Toronto, or Chicago, or wherever they came from. Or were brought from.
Jeebus - if anyone thinks Nancy Pelosi and Company can get away with a stunt like this, inciting violence against citizens of the United States and aided without question by the New York Times, well... they're probably right.
Welcome to America, the new third world hell.
Tea Party signs are homemade, freehand one-offs. I've never seen a professionally printed or mass-produced sign at a Tea Party rally. Also, the signs are usually a display of the protester's wit. "I didn't vote for the socialist" is too lame for a real Tea Partier. And are we supposed to think one of those beefy thugs actually painted the donkey? Since the donkey represents the Democrats, why would it be saying, "You can keep the change"? It doesn't make any sense. And Obama coming out of the donkey's butt is another oxymoron. The expression is "a horse's ass," no one says "a donkey's ass." If the donkey is supposed to pooping out Obama, well, children's humor doesn't cut it at a Tea Party rally. The protests draw out middle-aged, educated and informed people with adult problems, like paying taxes and health insurance.
The other poster is just as fake. First of all, there are two of them. Scott Brown is many, many news cycles ago; nobody thinks about him anymore, especially since it was the House vote.
The violent threatening tone of the sign (:WARNING") and the lame Brown/Browning "joke" is pure teamster mentality.
Tea Partiers are out there protesting the MSM as much as Obama and the Democrats, so why would they do anything that the MSM could use against them?
We don't, so they have to plant it.
I wouldn't bet on whether they're plants or not - but if they are Union guys that would explain the quality of the signs - they'd have to hire a Union shop to make them!
I'm sure I missed your rantings with the signs that said 'Kill Bush' a few years ago. And when Chris Matthews of MSNBC called cheney a 'fat Son of a B*tch' on the air.....
I'm sure you did.
dont know if it helps, but a google search for the phrase "If Brown can’t stop it, Browning can." does not bring up much before the rally except for the "note on brick", but "I didnt vote for the socialist" has been around a while. Both are easily cobbled together in a few hours by the folks working in government PR these days.
the stickers can be printed from the web for less than $30 bucks or produce a few in a local company print shop...easy. Or given the fire line tape, it could just as easily all been put together and printed on a office copier 11x14 and bordered with tape.
if anyone has friends in the D.C. area on Facebook or a Facebook group in the area, you may be able to find pictures
of them referenced at an award or civic group meeting. I wish Google would get their facial recognition software going.
I also think that the reference to Brown is a miss. Excuse my ignorance, (new baby at home), but is Brown so tied to the Tea Party and a rallying point? I think that Brown was a convenient fit for a "slogan" with several connotations that also try to reinforce the racist meme.
Regardless of the source, it has to stop or be exposed for the petty BS it is. And I dont think that they are winning any hearts and minds this way. Besides, they or their signs will not be there next time.
Or these may be a series of "signs" for Mr. Brown from his foes back home.
The two pictures in the upper right are the same person, as is the updated picture. The back of the shirt (yoke) has the stripes running horizontal instead of vertical, which is commonly done on the yoke.
"'If Brown can’t stop it, Browning can.' does not bring up much "
See, that is significant. Because one would think that a group with professionally made signs like that would be marketing their slogan. They would have been promoting themselves. That the slogan turns up very little would tell me that whoever this is, isn't using that line to attract supporters. Which is what I would expect from a union group pretending to be Tea Party movement members in order to discredit the group.
Now having said that, the signs also have a legitimate point. The entire purpose of the right to bear arms was the final check in a system of checks and balances against government tyranny. Our founders not only advocated armed violence against government overreach, they institutionalized it by insuring an armed population. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that the politicians fear an armed population who can rise up and resit the government by force of arms. So to remind the government of that fact from time to time is probably not a bad thing overall.
I ran across an article with pictures at http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/ (March29). Stripe shirt guy looks a lot like "Dale Robertson" - supposed Tea Party founder that no one has ever heard of and who pulled this shtick last year. Zoom in, allow for lighting and angle, shave off the beard and I think there is a match, although i am no expert. Take a look for yourself.
Robertson is bald. I don't think he'd go "undercover" for an event like this, not his style.
I don't agree with this post and the premise of what you are doing at all. The government cannot spy without reasonable cause, yet it is perfectly cool if bloggers and other self-righteous people intrude on the privacy of others (certainly its not a Constitutional violation but you might be surprised of what it could run afoul of)? I'm not going to "spare you", these are simply 5 people exercising their first amendment rights and freedom of organizing in protest of the government. You want to turn their legitimate protest into hate speech or a thought crime.
I perfectly understand your point of not wanting the tea party movement to be affiliated with that type of language and imagery. Did anyone tell these people their sign and attitude wasn't welcome during the protest? Apparently not. Did anyone confront them or have a discussion on the ramifications of that type of sign? Who knows, it would be useful to hear of any conversation these people had with others, however I'm not sure your drive to identify them is within bounds.
Are you trying to get them fired from their jobs or suffer some recourse? Because that reminds me of the Prop 8 stuff going down where the pro-gay-marriage folks were targeting and successfully cost some of those on the other side their jobs. I'm not sure if there is a lawsuit going on, but it certainly would seem like some type of defamation, or maybe not. You are insinuating that these people are going to be "potential shooters", I don't find that to be cool at all.
If your point is simply to say "these types of folks shouldn't be welcome at tea party events" you can pretty much do that without going the lengths to try to insight an Internet wide manhunt. Full disclosure: I got here from Patterico, and am not a regular reader, and I have no recollection of where I was on the afternoon of March 20.
"...intrude on the privacy of others..." - highly visible public protest, case closed.
"...your point of not wanting the tea party movement to be affiliated with that..." - not my point at all, but I can see where the Tea Party folks would feel that way.
Or maybe not, maybe the news for the past week has been right, and they're a group dedicated to violent overthrow of the government.
I agree w/your post Oh Reginald. Particularly don't like posting a photo of someone who may or may not be part of the group. Nice.
"...who may or may not be part of the group"- good, I was hoping people wouldn't overlook that, didn't know if saying it twice was enough. Guess four times can't hurt.
Again, great info! Thank!
A good reason to seek out the truth is the debunking of the "Green Helmut Guy" who appeared in numerous staged disasters during the Judea/Hamas war.
"Did anyone tell these people their sign and attitude wasn't welcome during the protest?"
Apparently, yes. They were fenced out.
"You are insinuating that these people are going to be "potential shooters", I don't find that to be cool at all."
They are carrying a sign that says that if the political outcome fails to satisfy them, a firearm outcome certainly would. I think that makes "potential shooters" a fair inference.
Actually, it wasn't that they were "fenced out". There was, for whatever reason, that green plastic psuedo fence all across the lawn that day. However, I saw these guys walk up after the party was in action, and noone embraced them. Many people, that I saw, took pains to avoid them, noone walked up to them to either praise or castigate their signs, including myself, though in hindsight, I wish that I had.
...So I guess Thomas Jefferson was a radical seditionist when he suggested that "From time to time the tree of Liberty..."?
I'm not saying I concur with these guys, as I certainly don't think the current situation calls for violence -- yet -- but sometimes reminding politicians that they ARE vulnerable isn't a bad thing in itself.
There's a reason the people are supposed to have guns, and it's not a bad idea when the politicians are so blatantly overstepping their bounds for them to be politely (i.e., verbally) reminded of it.
The following is not a direct threat of violence:
"A Monarch's neck should always have a noose about it... It keeps him upright."
- Robert Heinlein, 'The Cat Who Walks Through Walls' -
The noose has gotten too loose around our leaders' necks. They've forgotten it's there, and who it is actually wields the power.
I was at the rally from Noon to when it initially broke up for people to go visit the HR office buildings. When I initially walked in, I did notice that the LaRouche gang had some posters that had Obama looking like Hitler. But not in the same vein as what you are showing with the donkey (more like hope and change poster). I started in the back of the crowd and slowly worked my way as close as I could to the speaking platform from the front side. I finally gave up and worked my way around to the back side since I wanted to see John Voight. So ended up in the area where the fence was located to protect a flower bed (the photo with the firing line sign and the guy wearing the American flag shirt). I never saw those signs while I was in that area. Based on the one set of photos which show the gentlemen seated they are sitting in one of the areas that is an entrance to the lawn in front of the Congress Building which happens to be where the LaRouches were hanging out.
Sorry missed it the first time around. The Obama/Hitler coming out of the donkey looks a lot like the LaRouche gang Obama/Hitler big posters that they had as you were entering the lawn. If you want a place to start I would start there.
"They've forgotten it's there, and who it is actually wields the power."
As our Constitution makes clear, Voters wield the power. A contrary suggestion - especially that an armed political minority will enforce its will on the country through violence - signifies the exact mindset that our Constitution guards us from.
We'll beat this socialist Chicago thug with votes, have no fear. But the Browning line violates the very principles we claim to hold most dear.
"Give it to me or I'll take it from you by force" - not quite as noble as "Don't tread on me."
Bottom right photo, Looks like Rex Ryan is up to no good this offseason;)
I'm with you on this one for sure. Unveiled threats doesn't help the cause. Bricks through windows.....get a grip, the only "bricks" we should be throwing are the metaphorical "bricks" we'll throw at the voting booth in November.
Throw the bums out, but keep that brick in your pocket for now.
Deleted, as promised above.
gh
(See above)
gh
I see Montana has an excuse for everything. Today we find the real dangerous weenie who threatened to shoot a rep congressman was a left winger who contributed to the DNC, Why are the violent ones always democrats? Been that way since a democrat shot Lincoln and Kennedy.
There's a reason why 'lone gunmen' tend to be Leftist; they are collectivist so it's worthwhile to throw away one life for the greater good. Conservatives are individualist so naturally tend to gather into large bodies and fight collectively. Doesn't make much sense but it often works that way, and if it ever did come to serious violence in the United States, the conservatives wouldn't be rioting and looting stores--they'd be wearing uniforms or reasonable facsimile thereof belonging to state- or county-based military units, and they'd be shooting rioters and looters. I'm not too worried that widespread violence is imminent except perhaps in big cities where the Left has run everything for a century or so.
Agree - signs are inappropriate.
Also agree - could be libs, loons, or just frustrated tea partiers that don't know how to express their anger.
Disagree - calling Obama a 'socialist' or other 'ist' is not out of line, and is becoming a far more accurate statement each day. We've been selling hats at CommieObama.com since Oct 08. At first, it was a goofy gimmick product. Today - different buyers for different reasons.
I say 'stop the witch hunt' and just say you disagree with their message.
For what its worth, I posted something on my blog.