Remember those fearful right-wingers I mentioned yesterday?

[thatcrazycajun]

I apologize to the entire rest of the country on behalf of the more sensible people in the state where I reside (yes, there are at least a few), as one of our Congressional representatives seems to have succumbed to just the kind of irrational fear of the incoming administration I mentioned many people in this country still having in my last post of yesterday:
Ga. Congressman Calls Obama a Marxist, Warns of Dictatorship
And one of our Republican state senators—the Senate President Pro Tem, no less—wails about the possibility of his partymate U.S. Senator Saxby "Shameless" Chambliss losing his Dec. 2 runoff, leaving no one to stop "the redistribution of wealth and the dismantling of our military that will be attempted by the next Congress." (Emphasis added.) Yeesh.
Jim Wooten's Thinking Right blog at ajc.com
UPDATE, 11/11. 9:30p: The congressman cited in the first link, Rep. Paul Broun, apparently has now garnered sufficiently embarrassing national media attention that he is contritely apologizing for his extreme rhetoric, and even Chambliss has condemned his remarks. See new story here.

Comments

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

So, I assume this guy was really sounding the alarm when DHS was created, no...?

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Nope. Apparently it's only tyranny when Democrats do it (or they think Democrats are going to do it).

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

Perhaps someone should convince him that suicide is the only way for him to avoid the coming dictatorship.

[peteralway.livejournal.com]

Well, you know, it is standard proceedure for dictators to dismantle the military, because without the military, they lose the pricipal tool of dictators use to control the people.

Wait...

I'll figure it out eventually.

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

Remember one thing, dear Matt. You may disagree with him and others of his ilk, but just as you do, they have the right to pontificate as they see fit.

[lemmozine.livejournal.com]

I disagree. There are actually laws against inciting the public to riot, hate crimes, and such. I'm sure this gentleman has participated in many a lynching, both literally and figuratively, and frequently wears his Klan hood to meetings.

His speech may be legal, but that does not oblige me, you, or anyone to defend his rights. He is a walking argument in favor of the repeal of said rights.

I also refuse to give money to the ACLU because of what they did in Skokie. Free speech is one thing, rabble rousing hate speech is, to me, a form of intimidation and terrorism, and those who practice it do not need to be defended.

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

Would you prefer to silence them as they would try to silence you?

[lemmozine.livejournal.com]

Not saying that, simply saying that ignorance, bigotry & hate are not, to me, rights to be defended so much as they are abominations to be fought and scorned wherever possible.

I like the way Harlan Ellison put it: you have a right to your informed opinion.

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

The problem is: that phrase applies to both sides, and the other side is thinking exactly the same about you and your beliefs, etc.

[lemmozine.livejournal.com]

And is he defending my rights, or yours? I have not seen any evidence to that effect. He may have rights, but that does not obligate me (or you) to defend his glaring abuse of them, nor does it prevent me from thinking of him as some sort of baby-eating cannibal who belongs in prison, not public office.

With rights come some responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities of free speech is to not commit such crimes as libel and/or slander, a standard which this gentleman does not meet, in my opinion.

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

And while I don't agree with him either, what you say is true, it's your opinion.