Montana, Hell, Let’s Talk of the Democrats’ LONG History of Political Violence

-By Warner Todd Huston

The fake news media went mad last week when a Republican candidate from Montana got in a tussle with a pajama-boy-like journalist on the eve of Election Day. Across the fake news establishment the media whined about the “violence” inherent in the Republican Party in the era of Trump. But this narrative totally ignores the history of political violence perpetrated by Democrats that goes back well before the Civil War.

The latest incident that got the fake news establishment feeling their oats was when Montana’s Republican candidate for Congress, Greg Gianforte, pushed around a reporter for the UK paper The Guardian on the day before Election Day.

The Guardian’s pajama boy apparently pushed his way into a room with the candidate which sent the latter over the edge. As audio seems to prove, the Republican then initiated a physical altercation that, as pajama boy is wont to tell over and over again, broke the reporter’s glasses.

Gianforte apologized profusely the next day. But despite the cacophony of media condemnation for his actions meant to drive Democrats to the polls to defeat him, Gianforte won his election to Congress with a comfortable margin.

After his election, nearly every single report on the event started something like this report by tax dollar whore NPR (my bold).

Republican Greg Gianforte won the special election for Montana’s lone congressional seat on Thursday despite an election eve misdemeanor assault charge for allegedly body-slamming a reporter.

But those treatments were mild compared to the avalanche of abuse Gianforte took in the intervening hours between his “incident” and the announcement of his election victory.

The press went on a feeding frenzy against Gianforte and, naturally, they all tried to blame his actions on Trump and the “rhetoric of violence” Republicans are purportedly guilty of.

Just for a few examples, Newsweek said Gianforte’s actions showed “the trickledown of lawlessness in Trump’s America.”

Next, according to The Atlantic, the Montanan “took a page out of Trump’s playbook” when he attacked the reporter… because… you know… Trump went around punching reporters all day long during the late campaign for president, and stuff.

Also, Vox.com voxplained to its readers that Gianforte was just following Trump’s lead when he went brutish on the pajama boy.

On and on it went as the media blamed the now newly minted Congressman’s actions on Trump’s “vicious” rhetoric.

But not once in any of these voluminous condemnations in the press was there any recognition that the only real political violence in America is perpetrated (now and always) by the Democrat Party and its liberal minions.

We can go back to the beginnings of the Democrat Party where violence at the polls was a typical occurrence in every election. We can point to the span of nearly 200 years where Democrats used violence to maintain political power over both whites and blacks alike. We have the decades of the slave power keeping all in line with its roving gangs of enforcers, we have an entire civil war initiated by Democrats during which nearly a million Americans died, and we have a hundred years of Jim Crow and KKK armies all fueled by the Democrat Party. Yes, there is all that.

But we don’t have to go back 200 years, 100 years, or even 50 years. We can just look back at the entirety of the last 20 years where Democrats, Bernie Sanders supporters, black lives matter ruffians, Occupy Wall Street criminals, and your general left-wing lunatic in our colleges and we will see that political violence is the left’s stock and trade.

Yet, there has never been any mediot out there who felt the need to condemn the constant violence emanating from the left. When members of the Black Panthers carry clubs to the polls, when violence erupts in Berkeley, when leftists destroy property during riots in Ferguson, when liberals deliver bodily harm to Republicans, the liberal media is utterly silent on the topic of political violence.

And even as the media has been going mad over the “violence” committed by Gianforte, they’ve never gotten their dander up when one of their own “body slams” someone.

If “body slamming” people is something we don’t want in Washington D.C., one has to ask why the media has been so supportive of Minnesota Senator Al Franken? After all, Franken was entirely pleased with himself when he body slammed a right-leaning man who was protesting Howard Dean back in 2004.

Granted Franken’s violent outburst was five years before he ran for the U.S. Senate, but if the left is against thugs, why did they rush to support him when he ran?

And if you think there is too much distance between Franken’s 2004 attack (one he not only admitted to but gleefully so) and his 2008 run for Senate, then how about the fact that U.S. Senator Tim Kaine’s son was just arrested for committing violence at a Trump rally last year?

Not only is this young man’s father a U.S. Senator from the Democrat Party, but said Senator was just the Democrat Party’s nominee for vice president!

And where do you think 24-year-old Linwood Kaine learned his hate and violence? Yeah, in the home of his Democrat dad, the Democrat who was supposed to became the second most powerful man in the world.

So where is the media to squawk about all this violence in the Democrat Party?

You guessed it. Nowhere.

It is the hypocrisy and partisanship of the press on full display.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners Week of May 26, 2017
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • stan25

    The one that really takes the cake is when during the height of the slave debate, a DemocRAT Congresscritter canes Charles Sumner of Ma almost to death on the floor of the United States Senate. The media and the rest of the left denies it ever happened now.

  • Vagabond661

    Trump supporters have been assaulted just for wearing a MAGA ball cap. Yet we are preached that it doesn’t matter what women wear, they are not asking for it.

  • pennywit

    “They do it too?” That’s your rationalization?

    • Brucehenry

      I’m sure the article is about how the mean old lieberal media is not reporting when Democrats attack with the same level of outrage as when Republicans do (allegedly).

      Like the media was supposed to BLOW UP when a former cast member of SNL was involved in violence in 2004, years before the guy ran for office, just like it did when a leading candidate for the House attacked a reporter for doing his job in 2017.

      When Bob Etheridge, my congressman at the time, had a few too many bourbons and actually assaulted an ambush-style reporter from a sleazy wingnut website, he LOST his election and his political career was over. But it’s OK if you’re a Republican, didn’t you know that? Because they are allowed to be bullies, beating up “pajama boys” and, as Laura Ingraham puts it, “stealing their lunch money.” Haw haw!

      • jim_m

        NO it’s not OK. However, when you run a far left socialist you deserve to lose as the dems did. Also, this should make people think twice about the wisdom of early voting, which has always been unwise but the left will never give up the opportunity for vote fraud in exchange for the ability to have events affect the outcome up to election day.

        With 70% of votes cast prior to election day this election was over before the incident occurred.

        And finally, journalists need to stop trying to be action heroes and just report the news without trying to incite it.

        As to “it’s OK when you are a Republican”, we have been through decades of left wing, it’s OK when our side does it. From tax evasion (Charlie Rangel) to Sexual Assault (Bill Clinton) the left has constantly excused the illegalities from their side. Until the left gets serious about prosecuting Hillary for her illegal server they should STFU.

        • Brucehenry

          I haven’t suggested that he be kept from taking his seat, although I acknowledge that many have suggested it. My beef is with the voters who voted for this guy in spite of knowing what he had done, and those who made sure to go out and vote for him BECAUSE of what he had done. And the politicians and pundits who excused him.

          Even a writer for National Review agrees with me — first time ever AFAIK.

          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447987/greg-gianforte-ben-jacobs-assaulting-reporter-wrong-period?utm_content=buffer84a3a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

          • jim_m

            So your beef is with the 70% of Montana voters who voted before it happened and you are claiming that they should have known this beforehand? You’re an ass.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not sure of the timeline but when I looked at the returns about 10pm, Quist was ahead. Of the 70% of voters whose votes had been counted and reported by that time (early voters, mostly), Quist had won the majority.

            Yeah I think the assault actually helped the guy.

          • jim_m

            I dont think it helped him. I think people clearly sympathized with the obvious frustration with the media.

            But it would not have helped Quist. No one voting for Gianforte was going to switch their vote to Quist and they were likely to still cast their vote for Gianforte rather than run the risk of an avowed socialist (who by definition wants to turn the US into Venezuela) winning the election.

            People very likely held their noses and cast their ballots just like they did last November. I think you grossly underestimate how much your candidates stink to the rest of the nation. It isn’t like you have centrist democrats anymore. If you did, you’d be winning.

        • Scalia

          The MSM is practically gasping for any Democrat victory so they can advance their storyline that the public is turning against Republicans.

          Quist’s loss deprives them of their “moment,” so they’ve got to cover their failure with the-GOP-is-violent meme.

          • Brucehenry

            Is it a “meme” if GOP candidates are actually punching reporters in front of eyewitnesses? LOL.

          • jim_m

            Video or it didn’t happen.

          • Scalia

            Yes, it’s a meme when the MSM restricts their foaming at the mouth to when a Republican engages in it.

          • Brucehenry

            I sure saw the Etheridge tape a few million times in the day. And, like I say, Etheridge LOST his reelection bid, having been ahead in the polling throughout the race.

          • Scalia

            Really? Liberal reporters and commentators all over the country were complaining about liberal violence and how impermissible it is? Links?

          • Brucehenry

            Well, you may have a point. I suppose a great deal of it was local. But they sure didn’t let up.

            Access Hollywood and ET both ran the story, I remember that, because I asked my wife “WTF?”

          • jim_m

            Ill bet anything that you won’t find word one in the MSNBC archives. Probably not in CNN’s either.

      • jim_m

        The problem is that conservatives can only beat up pajama boys because the left is full of pussies. The science is settled:

        An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed
        171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and
        bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth
        and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, ​found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.

        It appears that socialism appeals to people who are unable to get things for themselves. Who would have guessed?

        • Brucehenry

          And it appears that modern Republicanism appeals to people who like to sneer at, harass, and beat the shit out of people physically weaker than themselves. But I already knew that.

          Of course it appeals to people who like to pretend they are tough guys too. But you already knew that.

          • jim_m

            Wait, See my comment to Penny. Who is it that is calling for people they disagree with to be beaten up? Pretty much that is the exclusive tactic of the left.

    • jim_m

      I suppose you forgot when obama said, “Punch back twice as hard”. Or when Rep Michael Capuano (D- Mass) encouraged supporters to violence: “Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”

      Democrats and their supporters have increasingly planned terroristic activities against GOP conventions.

      The Dem mayor in Berkeley, CA is a member of the group that organized the riots and violence in his own town and he ordered his own police force to stand down from protecting conservatives who had a legal permit to demonstrate.

      Ultimately, if you want to plead that we should all follow the law, your side has been out front in saying that the law should be selectively applied to your own advantage. Sorry if no one gives a shit anymore about your safety. You haven’t shown any concern for anyone elses.

      • Scalia

        pennywit has spoken out against the violence by the Left in Berkeley, so I give him credit for that. It’s the rest of the MSM Left (redundant, I know) that couldn’t care less about violence when their side is involved. They only criticize violence when they think it’s to their political advantage.

        As I’ve said repeatedly, I fear this will spin out of control. If responsible people on both sides don’t prevail, people are going to die—LOTS of them.

        • jim_m

          I’m not saying that Pennywit has supported the actions in Berkeley. I am saying that in general, his side has and that if they are wanting to say that what Gianforte did was wrong they have surrendered the standing to do so by their previous actions. The left has applauded violence conducted on their behalf against people whose only offense was thinking different from them. It’s really hard to consider this to be more serious than the systematic use of violence in order to deny people their civil rights.

          • Brucehenry

            In other (and fewer) words, Whataboutism.

            https://robquist.org/issues/

          • jim_m

            No. The violence is inappropriate. I haven’t denied that, which is what you are trying to claim.

            But you are a hypocrite. Which is not a surprise really. You have not spoken out against the rioting that your side uses to silence others. You have mocked the victims and your comments here do so now.

            I have pointed out that you crocodile tears for Quist are just that. You believe that your crappy candidate should be given a pass because the GOP candidate makes a mistake and knocks down a reporter who quite obviously (and probably deliberately) provoked him to anger.

            You think that claiming this is whataboutism is some sort of invalidation of my argument. Fine. Then I will tell you that the GOP should start doing to the dems exactly what the dems have been doing to the GOP. I would say let’s start with breaking the legs of democrats.

            Your complaint is that this was some horrible action that Gianfote committed. You haven’t yet seen the same level of violence that your side has been conducting for over a decade. Oh, and the word was that the left’s response was that Allee Bausch was asking for it so I really don’t give a crap how “shocked” you are about Gianforte.

            When the Right starts putting innocent leftists in the hospital for walking down the street come back and talk to me.

          • Brucehenry

            If you want to find equivalence with the Gianforte case, in recent times (2010) we have the Etheridge case. In your link, nameless thugs assaulted innocent people. In Gianforte’s case, and in Etheridge’s, politicians attacked journalists doing their jobs.

            Since Whataboutism is your thing, why don’t you try to find a liberal equivalent to the “alt-right” guy who killed two men defending two hijab-wearing Muslim women from his menacing them?

          • jim_m

            You mean the guy in Portland that voted for Bernie? The same guy that said people shouldn’t vote for Trump. Yeah. He sounds really right wing.

            You are such a lying dumbass. If you are going to lie like that you should ban yourself from Wizbang to avoid further embarrassment. (Oh, and the catch phrase: “by any means necessary” is a far left catch phrase advocating violence against the right.) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/17b5fffd18d41ebc1878427435ede5c1c83a6afa48f403f822d8440a56909140.jpg

          • jim_m

            Hey, Bruce. Next time when you want to show an example of right wing violence, try to not point to the Bernie Sanders voter that advocated violent overthrow of the government on his FB feed and who just murdered 2 people in the name of his “by any means necessary” politics.

            What a fucking dumbass you are!

            Thanks for playing tonight you fucking moron!!

          • Brucehenry

            The guy says in the Facebook feed that he apologizes to his friends for “not voting for Trump as I said I would,” you dumbass. Followed by how he “abstained from voting for the first time” you illiterate hothead.

            And apparently so is the Daily Caller, since they seemed to have missed it too, even though they posted it.

          • jim_m

            SO you think that his antipipeline stance is right wing? It is clear that his politics were not right wing.

            You are now left with saying that racism is something that is found only on the right. AGAIN.

            Once more you claim that racists are right wing even though every other political position they take is radically far left.

            You are hysterically stupid.

          • jim_m

            Evidence is that he was kicked out of a Trump rally as a false flag troublemaker, He was clearly a seriously mentally disturbed individual, which is incontrovertible evidence that he is on the left politically.

          • Scalia

            My apologies. I took your “you” to be directed at pennywit. My bad.

        • pennywit

          I don’t think it can be stopped now.

          • jim_m

            Nope. It’s clearly beyond the tipping point. Too many on the left are advocates of violence on the behalf of their agenda. This has been coming for some time now and it was inevitable that the rest of the nation would eventually grow tired of the violence and intimidation. As people resist left wing intimidation the left will ramp up their actions.

            The left fetishizes law breaking and acts of vandalism and violence in the name of their ideology. Mass murderers who killed to advance a left wing agenda are icons and heroes to the left. With a culture that elevates such activities how can we expect peaceful resolution of differences?

            There is a reason the left has aligned itself with radical islam and the palestinian movement. They share the same views as to the humanity of their opposition and the legitimacy of violence to achieve their ends.

          • See what I wrote to Pennywit.

            The left has the media on its side. The media loves violence – “If it bleeds, it leads”, after all. Bad news (wars, Palestinian and Islamic stupidity, anything that can be spun to the bad side) gets eyeballs. Eyeballs get ratings. Ratings drive revenue. And revenue’s getting pretty darn skimpy these days in the big media conglomerates. There’s too many other ways to get information, and ‘News At 11’ is a lot less popular than it used to be.

            “Tonight – is your child safe in that car seat from rioters with pipe bombs? Our special report will spell it all out for you – so tune in tonight!” – Yeah, hyperbole, but not all that far off from reality any more.

            Things HAVE to bleed, so the media can feed.

          • jim_m

            It’s not just about what the left is saying. They are claiming that speech they don’t like is unconstitutional. This is not simply, “The left is nuts and I will ignore them”, They will end all debate by making debate with them a criminal act. That is what they are doing when they say “Hate speech is not free speech”. Because they are the arbiters of what is hate speech they are saying that anyone who disagrees verbally with them is committing a crime.

            You can think that you can ignore them but they are not going to allow you that luxury.

          • I’m going to disagree. The vast majority of people don’t care. Politics affects their lives in only a peripheral fashion, and the left’s antics aren’t going to predispose the uncaring to switch to the side of the left.

            Why? Because they’re not seeing the calls to violence by the left as applying to them. They’re fairly comfortable, they see their 401ks going up. They see the ‘help’ of Obamacare hurting them a lot more than it helps, which makes the calls for fighting the AHCA reforms unappealing. They see the riots on TV and aren’t inclined to go out and join the destruction – they know someone’s gonna have to clean up and rebuild all that shit that’s been broke, and they’d prefer to not see it busted in the first place.

            The Left WANTS people to be angry, unhappy, upset. Then they can ‘agitate for change’, promise all sorts of ‘help’, and blame the non-Left when things don’t get better. The Media left loves it because bad news brings good ratings. Look at Ferguson – they milked THAT for all it was worth.

            Actually, when it comes to it I think that’s one of the reasons the TEA Party was so reviled. They weren’t violent, they didn’t riot, break windows, set things on fire. They actually left places CLEANER when they were done with their rallies. They didn’t chain themselves across freeways. They were total duds as far as news goes.

            I may be wrong – but I think it’s possible to examine this shit so closely so you lose perspective on the wider picture. The media likes to think it can set the tone for the whole country – but we’re long past that point. There’s too many alternative pictures out there – the media can’t control the image like they used to.

            And on that note – an old TV show had it right.

          • jim_m

            I’d like you to be right, and you are to the extent that politics are critical to only a minority of the country. But the left has made everything political and they are forcing their ideology on every aspect of life right down to your bathroom. They are even trying to dictate what words you can and cannot use right down to your pronouns.

            When this intrusiveness is being enforced with violence people will respond in kind. The left won’t accept being ignored. They demand your attention.

            You may not be interested in leftist politics, but leftist politics is interested in you.

          • It’s easy enough to see that their dictates aren’t winning a lot of support out in the real world. They call for a boycott of Chik-Fil-A, and what happens? They call for people to go to Target because of their impressive adherence to ‘progressive’ thinking, and what happen? Lol. People went to their competitors. And Amazon’s really killing anchor store retail – like Macy’s and Sears. If Target is one of those that goes the way of Borders Books, I’ll jsut shake my head.

            Besides, their customer service sucks.

            http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/28/investing/target-earnings/

            But have heart! Target shares are up after a ‘SMALLER THAN EXPECTED’ drop in earnings! (“Yes, we’re losing money on each sale, but we’ll make it up in volume!”)

            And Whole Foods ain’t too healthy any more either, seems they’re not going ‘organic’ enough to please the extremists. They’re starting to close stores. https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/whole-foods-is-in-a-whole-heap-of-trouble-and-the-reason-why-is-surprising.html

            What we see regarding ‘cultural appropration’ and the gender controversy is – I think, YMMV and all that – a last-ditch effort to by the left to maintain relevance and control of the narrative. But the coverage by various media outlets doesn’t do them any favors.

            When the furthest-left cities like Portland are, in essence, eating their own through more and more stringent applications of their beliefs (like two women who were hounded out of business for DARING to open a Burrito truck and not being of the right ethnicity to make friggin’ TORTILLAS…) – it’s only a matter of time until it collapses.

            Leftist politics may be interested in us, but that’s like a Pocket Poodle being interested in a Great Dane. It’ll need a LOT of outside help to get the job done, and frankly, people aren’t seeing it as worth the effort.

          • Oh…

            “They demand your attention.”

            They THINK they want the attention. Outside their little bubbles, when people are MADE to care, they usually don’t like it.

    • Scalia

      Your answer is in the last four sentences of the column:

      So where is the media to squawk about all this violence in the Democrat Party?

      You guessed it. Nowhere.

      It is the hypocrisy and partisanship of the press on full display.

    • “‘They do it too?’ That’s your rationalization?”…. No. I am saying Republicans DON’T do it. If you look at the numbers you have very, very few cases of anyone on the right acting out in violence, but Democrats do it nearly every day and they’ve been doing it for well over 200 years. Save a very few cases, all political violence comes from the left. And it always has.

      • jim_m

        Come on Warner. You have to understand that these leftists believe that even verbally expressing a conservative opinion is an act of violence and should be prosecutable as assault.

        • LOL. That is the case, indeed. Just daring to BE a Republican is a crime against humanity as far as they are concerned. And it is far worse than the open violence they commit nearly every day in their eyes.

          • pennywit

            No, being a Republican is not a crime against humanity. Eating your steak with ketchup, on the other hand …

          • Brucehenry

            Even worse, it must be well done.

      • Scalia

        Great to see you posting again, Warner. Welcome back!

  • jim_m

    I think we are giving short shrift to the fact that Quist is a far left socialist. Montana is a funny state and has a left wing streak in it, but not that far left.

    Put that far left vision in conjunction with the news that California’s single payer healthcare plan will cost double their existing state budget and I think a lot of people are smart enough to understand that this guy’s ideas are dangerous for the nation.

    As the democrats are now a fully socialist party they will continue to lose popularity with the masses. You can vote for someone who is intemperate and perhaps ill suited for public office, or you can chose someone who is dangerous for our nation and democracy. It’s actually not a hard choice.

    • Brucehenry

      Sure just look at all these radical proposals Quist was putting forth!

      https://robquist.org/issues/

      • jim_m

        So his web page says a whole lot of nothing. You can discern that he is for government control of land and against private land ownership. That’s beyond socialism and is communism.

        He also comes out for an amendment to make it illegal to criticize public officials, which is what Citizens United was actually about.

        Sounds like a man who should be on an FBI watch list.

        • Brucehenry

          If you are pretending that the Citizens United decision was an attempt to prevent making criticism of public officials illegal, you’re even more dishonest than I had ever taken you for.

          • jim_m

            OK. SO you just demonstrated that you are completely ignorant of the case.

            Citizens United was only incidentally about the free speech rights of corporations. In this case it was Hillary Clinton that wanted to silence the makers of a film that was negative toward Hillary. That was the whole reason this came up. Had the film praised Hillary can you honestly say that she would have filed suit to stop it?

            Can you name a single instance of the left saying that Unions should be silenced? They are corporations too yet they funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of the dems. You never complain about their impact on our elections.

            You are either ignorant or a liar. I am open to your being both. You are certainly a hypocrite.

          • Brucehenry

            Clinton sought to force CU to obey an existing federal statute regarding certain electioneering practices near election time. Her suit did not in any way shape or form seek to make “criticism of public officials illegal.”

            So dishonest.

          • jim_m

            Read the Wikipedia entry. The FEC had made politically biased rulings in favor of the dems allowing previous showings of films that explicitly called for people to vote against President Bush. CU had established itself as a film maker by producing several other films and as such was entitled to the same consideration.

            By drawing a distinction this case became one which was solely about silencing critics of Hillary and demanding a politically biased interpretation of the law.

            It is precisely this behavior on the left which thoroughly justifies the reaction you see to Gianforte’s actions.

          • Brucehenry

            Well that’s one interpretation, one which I should have expected from you. LOL don’t ever change.

          • jim_m

            No. That is THE interpretation an that is why the SCOTUS ruled as it did

          • Brucehenry

            No, the court could have ruled on the narrow issues you point out — whether CU was actually a “film maker” and so entitled to free speech, etc. Instead of finding that in this one particular case the requirements of McCain-Feingold didn’t apply, it threw out McCain-Feingold pretty much entirely, which opened the floodgates to money from corporations AND unions.

          • jim_m

            McCain Feingold should be thrown out. Only a fascist would make the claim that in order to have a fair election we need to reduce freedom of speech. Therefore we should not be surprised when you argue that our freedoms should be permanently eliminated.

          • Brucehenry

            McCain-Feingold wasn’t perfect but getting rid of it only exacerbated the system of legalized bribery we call “modern campaign finance.”

          • jim_m

            Yes, campaign finance has issues. But when you allow obama to collect millions in illegal foreign donations because he removed all safeguards on his online collections that would serve to identify those illegal donations and you do nothing about it, it becomes abundantly obvious that federal regulation is not about making the elections “clean” it is about restricting access to the electoral process and protecting the elites.

            The only real answer that is not about destroying liberty is to make all the information freely available as to who donates to a campaign. But the left doesn’t want that because they get far too much money from unsavory people.

          • Brucehenry

            As I said, McC-F wasn’t perfect.

          • jim_m

            But your solution, like every idiotic lefty, is to have more McCain-Feingold. Rather than provide more freedom your answer is more fascist left wing totalitarianism.

          • jim_m

            By much worse I assume you mean that your side lost even thought they out spent their opposition something like 3 to 1.

          • MacLame-Feinshity was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

          • Brucehenry

            What are you, ten?

          • Seems like the Supreme Court of these United States agreed with my take, you old illeducated fool.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I remember Justice Scalia, in his opinion, talking about MacLame-Feinshity.

          • McLame-Feinshit specifically exempted Unions, liar.

          • Brucehenry
          • Retired military

            Bruce
            The very notion of Hillary trying to get someone to follow the law indicates that
            a. It was her opponents
            b. That they were trying to get a message out that was negative towards her.

            Sorry but Hillary trying to get someone to obey the law is intended only for her benefit and the very law that she is trying to get upheld is one that she would break in a second if she thought she could get a benefit from it.

          • Brucehenry

            Even if all that is true the CU decision was still an unfortunate one, in my opinion. Something should be done to modify the system of legalized open bribery we now have.

          • jim_m

            It isn’t open. It is very easy to conceal where you get your money from. All you want is more regulation to protect the entrenched interests.

          • Brucehenry

            I would be happier if it were more open, I can agree to that.

            How would that be accomplished without “more regulation,” which wingnuts would object to as an infringement on liberty?

          • jim_m

            Allow anyone to speak out on candidates and campaigns. The corruption comes through all the restrictions we have put in place as to who can use political speech and when, who can donate to campaigns, etc. Allow anyone to speak or donate but make them be transparent in their support and funding.

            The left is against making support and funding transparent because most of their activities are astroturf and not supported by real Americans. They also want to create opaque rules on funding which facilitate disguising their funding sources.

            The left’s solutions are to restrict speech. THe answer is to do the opposite. The answer to corrupt speech is free speech. Too bad you cannot see that.

          • Brucehenry

            All the furor over campaign finance started in reaction to Watergate which revealed how much unexamined money contributed to corruption. A fact of which you would be unaware since you are ignorant of any history before 1985.

          • jim_m

            And we have the tools to make campaign finance transparent, which we did not have back then. Why do you insist on doubling down on the failed policies of the 1970’s?

          • Retired military

            I can see some changes. But look at what Obama did Accepting credit card donations wiht absolutely no verification checks other than was the number being entered was valid.

  • Brucehenry

    In any case I’m glad to see Warner back. He has a thick skin.

  • Par4Course

    Republican violence is the “Man bites dog” story that is real news. Democrat violence is so commonplace that the media don’t even notice it, so it’s not “news.”

    • Brucehenry

      Here’s some more man-bites-dog news we don’t see in the so-called “liberal” media, even on MSNBC.

      https://mic.com/articles/151681/over-30-000-muslims-in-the-uk-marched-against-isis-of-course-you-didn-t-hear-about-it#.w2FX9Velk

      • jim_m

        That’s a really funny article. I love how it ends that muslims are not responsible for the acts done by other muslims.

        I wonder if you could find a single leftist who will say that white people are not culpable for the actions of their forebears? Or if white people should not bear the brunt of the responsibility (and therefore retribution) for their “white privilege”?

        This comes from a Bruce, who has universally condemned any muslim political leader who dares stand up against islamist violence, like Al Sisi of Egypt. Bruce finds radical islam to be an ally that he will gladly accept their help in destroying western institutions of democracy that he hates.

        • Brucehenry

          Over the top nonsense and strawman arguments I never made.

          Also, one “leftist” who will say that white people are not “culpable” for the actions of their forebears is me. However, that doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as “white privilege.” There is, indeed, such a thing.

          • jim_m

            Yes there is. It is pure racism. It is the belief that backs are incapable of succeeding on their own abilities. You, as a believer in it have just admitted that you believe blacks are inferior to white people.

          • Brucehenry

            I can find you many examples of videos where people say stupid things, like racists at Trump rallies, haters at Palin events, etc. Videos like those, or like this one, don’t prove shit except that there are dumbasses on every side of every issue.

          • jim_m

            This one actually demonstrates the same attitude toward blacks that I have seen from every single person talking about white privilege. The same condescending, racist attitude that blacks are genetically incapable of succeeding without the help of superiorly enlightened white people like themselves.

            The video is not proof, it is just illustration. Take a look in the mirror and see yourself how the world sees you, you bigot.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL the “world” doesn’t wildly misinterpret the evidence of the “world’s” own senses as you do, Jim. And the “world” has a 64% literacy rate, while you are functionally illiterate and don’t know WTF you are reading most of the time. Or, if you do, you pretend it means something it doesn’t.

          • jim_m

            Whites are not privileged around the world. Your claim that they are is ridiculously blinkered and ignorant. To suggest that people do not naturally prefer people of their own culture militates against what we see in human behavior worldwide. To suggest that this natural preference is somehow exclusive to white people and is only racist when it happens in the US is amazingly idiotic.

            There is no white privilege because anyone (including blacks) can assimilate to the mainstream culture and be successful. Your belief suggests that blacks cannot do so even thought here are abundant examples of such.

            In fact there are more than 1% examples of such. So why are muslims better than blacks? Why are you such a fucking racist/ Why do you hate black people so much?

          • Brucehenry

            Hilariously Jim-like

          • jim_m

            the concept of white privilege is racism straight up. Go to Zimbabwe and tell me about white privilege. Go to any nation that is majority non white and tell me about white privilege. What you are fretting about is not about skin color but your overwhelming racist beliefs make it so in your pathetic, diseased mind.

          • jim_m

            The concept f white privilege comes today from the field of “Critical Race Studies” which itself is based on bigoted racialist assumptions about all races. To accept the concept of white privilege is to accept the racialist premise of this field. No surprise then that you accept this because you are sch a racist that you cannot conceive of the idea that race is not all consuming in every aspect of human endeavor.

      • jim_m

        Oh, and the Ahmadiyya sect cited in your link comprises ~0.6% of muslims worldwide.

        So let’s agree that less than 1% of muslims have stood up and declared their opposition to radical islam. That doesn’t really say much and does nothing to invalidate the argument that muslims need to do more to fight against it.

        • Brucehenry

          If 30,000 people marched for or against any other cause in the UK it would merit a mention on the news, but this one didn’t.

          That is because the news is if it bleeds it leads and sensationalism and little else.

          • jim_m

            Refresh to see my whole comment. Less than 1% of a group standing up isn’t really all that newsworthy.

          • Brucehenry

            The march was sponsored by this sect. Not every participant was Ahmadiyya.

          • jim_m

            <1%

          • Brucehenry

            Sure. And the organizers of the Women’s March on Jan 21 this year were much much less than 1%, yet millions marched.

          • jim_m

            Successful blacks make up more than `1% of the US population. Why do you deny their existence? Racist bigot!

          • Brucehenry

            Yet most successful blacks acknowledge that there is such a thing as white privilege

          • jim_m

            Lies

          • Brucehenry

            Well I freely admit that my assertion is not backed by quantifiable evidence. Is your (implied assertion that most successful black people don’t believe there is such a thing) backed up by any evidence?

          • Brucehenry

            OK sure forget the phrase “white privilege” and let’s just accept yours — “white people have advantages.”

            I’m fine with that.

            The fact that these advantages that whites have — “cultural affinity based” or whatever — amount to disadvantages to those not white pretty much winds up being the same thing.

          • jim_m

            NO. People give preference to people they share culture with. You see that in Japan, China, everywhere. It isn’t about being white. You only think that because you are a racist.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure white privilege is not a thing in China and Japan because “white culture” is not the majority culture.

            Logically, if members of the majority enjoy advantages the minority do not enjoy, the minority is DISadvantaged.

            So whether or not we call it “white privilege” it is a fact that the majority enjoys advantages the minority doesn’t. The argument is and should be whether anything should be done about it legally.

          • jim_m

            Exactly. My point is that the concept of white privilege is based on the belief that whites are genetically racist. The concept of white privilege is a racist belief about both whites and about blacks. Whites are irretrievably racist, black are irredeemably stupid, lazy and incompetent to manage their own affairs without assistance from the select few whites who are enlightened to their situation.

            The solution is not more racism, which is what you are preaching. The solution is assimilation and reducing the focus on things that cannot be affected like race. Your racist solution is to hyperfocus on race, making the issue worse, not better.

          • Brucehenry

            “Assimilation” — does that mean white is normal and to be aspired to while black or brown is “different” and therefore something to drop, get away from, leave behind?

            I’ve never heard any proponent of the concept argue that whites are “genetically” racist and I don’t believe you have either. Show us some quotes where anybody argues such a thing.

          • jim_m

            Why do you immediately jump to race? Can you not see how everything is race to you?

            Why do you insist on proving my point that you are a fucking dirtbag racist?

          • Brucehenry

            We have been talking for hours now about “white privilege.” Your “immediately jump to race” imaginary gotcha is just that — imaginary, you fool.

          • jim_m

            If this is about skin color why are Asians and Indians so successful?

            Because it isn’t about skin color except in the minds of racist bigots from the left like you.

          • Brucehenry

            I often meet, in my work, Asians and Indians who ain’t all that successful.

          • jim_m

            Wow. so for white privilege all minorities must be uniformly successful? I suppose you presume that there are no poor white people too.

          • Brucehenry

            Just pointing out that you are maintaining a stereotype, the one in which all Asians and Indians are successful (and math geniuses?).

          • jim_m

            Statistically they are higher achieving. This has been demonstrated by Ivy League schools, which systematically discriminate against Asian students. Or are you going to argue that Asians are worse off than any other ethnic group?

          • Brucehenry

            No I acknowledge that, just pointing out that you failed to qualify “Asians and Indians” with the word “many” or “most.”

          • jim_m

            I don’t get hung up on racial quotas like you apparently do.

          • Brucehenry

            Still no quotes about “genetically racist.”

          • jim_m

            Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

            And if you disagree with obama that makes you a racist.

          • Brucehenry

            The concept of “metaphor” eludes you you dumbass.

          • jim_m
          • Brucehenry

            LOL the blaze link is about one kook from Toronto.

            The ign link is supposed to be a joke. You didn’t get it.

          • jim_m

            The “kook” in Toronto is a founder of the BLM movement. No other movement has been as influential on the let in the last 2 years. It is inherently racist.

          • Brucehenry

            Also, I note that you have not produced any quotes of anybody calling anybody else “genetically racist.”

  • yetanotherjohn

    Its different when they do it because … shut up.
    It really is different when the left does it because the initial news cycle is less intense and it quickly drops down the memory hole. In the short term this helps the left for obvious reasons, but in the long run it hurts the left as they don’t have the brake on their actions and they lose the ability to discuss with reason vs. insults.

  • Retired military

    From the tape I saw there was no body slam involved.

    • jim_m

      There’s video now? I have only found audio.

      • Retired military

        I saw the video. Looks like 2 guys wrestling but no body slam

        • jim_m

          I would like to see the beginning of the confrontation to see the behavior of the reporter. I think it would be helpful to see if the reporter was rude or overly aggressive in his actions, which I think would mitigate the response from Gianforte.

          • Brucehenry

            Didn’t sound like it from the audio. Reporters are routinely annoying, repeatedly ask the same question, etc.

          • jim_m

            The audio primarily catches Gianforte until after the scuffle is over. Audio doesn’t capture a physical confrontation or someone sticking a microphone in someone’s face.

          • Brucehenry

            Do you imagine that politicians don’t routinely have microphones “stuck in their faces”?

          • jim_m

            I imagine that in some places people are polite.

          • Brucehenry

            In almost all places politicians put up with “rudeness” from reporters without assaulting them. But on a DC street corner in 2010, and in MT in 2017, a couple of them didn’t.

            In one case, the perp lost his seat. In the other, the perp won.

          • jim_m

            In one case it was more about a seated congressman telling the little guy to STFU about his corruption, in another it was about a candidate letting his temper get the best of him with an obnoxious reporter who was trying to push a false news story on him.

        • jim_m

          Doesn’t look like Gianforte in the video. I’m thinking it’s not legit.

      • Retired military

        This video was also attached to a Yahoo news story. I am assuming that it is the same folks involved

        Meanwhile in a similar vein and something else David Robertson wont report on. here in TX we have dem state legislators threatening the life of republican state legislatures

        http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/democrat-threatens-shoot-gop-lawmaker-texas-house-floor-calls-ice-illegal-protesters/

  • jim_m

    The lesson that is being missed here is that despite Trump’s approval rating being terrible and people hating Congress, people hate the candidates the left is putting up even more. How crap must you be in order to lose given the current situation?

    The DNC is having record poor donations this year. With the base as outraged as it seems to be, how can they manage to be doing so badly? Or are they just now finding out that millennials living in their parent’s basements don’t have money to give to political candidates?

  • jim_m

    Yep. Pretty much.

    I know it’s theoretically wrong for a Republican candidate to smack around an annoying liberal journalist, but that still doesn’t mean that I care. Our ability to care is a finite resource, and, in the vast scheme of things, millions of us have chosen to devote exactly none of it toward caring enough to engage in fussy self-flagellation because of what happened to Slappy La Brokenshades.

    Sorry, not sorry.

    And that’s not a good thing, not by any measure, but it is a real thing. Liberals have chosen to coarsen our culture. Their validation and encouragement of raw hate, their flouting of laws (Hi leakers! Hi Hillary!) and their utter refusal to accept democratic outcomes they disapprove of have consequences. What is itself so surprising is how liberals and their media rentboyz are so surprised to find that we normals are beginning to feel about them the way they feel about us – and that we’re starting to act on it. If you hate us, guess what?

    We’re going to start hating you right back.

    • jim_m

      Oh, and this part:

      Where was the sackcloth and ashes act from Schumer, Pelosi, and Felonia
      von Pantsuit when our side was being bloodied and beaten? There wasn’t
      one, because the left supports us getting bloodied and beaten.

      The left loves violence when it is done on their behalf. To quote a prominent leftist who is revered like a god by his followers: “Punch back twice as hard.”

  • jim_m

    So-called journalist Ben Jacobs advocates violence against conservatives. Gets upset when he receives a taste of his own medicine.

    Left, right and center, straight news and opinion, journalists at CPAC have one thing in common, the overwhelming urge to punch Benji Backer

    Mr backer is a 19YO conservative activist that Ben Jacobs has called out publicly encouraging people to physically assault him.

    I no longer feel bad about what Rep Gianforte did. I feel bad that Mr Jacobs could still speak and walk when it was over.

  • Meanwhile, shooting for a new low:

    NEW CIVILITY WATCH: Annual CNN host* Kathy Griffin Beheads Donald Trump in Shocking Photo Shoot.

    Link deliberately excised.