House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at a Capitol Hill news conference on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg) Washington (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the anti-government rhetoric over President Barack Obama's health care reform effort is troubling because it reminds her of the violent debate over gay rights that roiled San Francisco in the 1970s.
Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening" and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.
Former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White was convicted of the 1978 murders of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, a gay rights activist. Other gay rights activists and others at the time saw a link between the assassinations and the violent debate over gay rights that had preceded them for years.
During a rambling confession, White was quoted as saying, "I saw the city as going kind of downhill." His lawyers argued that he was mentally ill at the time. White committed suicide in 1985.
Pelosi is part of a generation of California Democrats on whom the assassinations had a searing effect. A resident of San Fransisco, Pelosi had been a Democratic activist for years and knew Milk and Moscone. At the time of their murders, she was serving as chairwoman of her party in the northern part of the state.
On Thursday, Pelosi was answering a question about whether the current vitriol concerned her. The questioner did not refer to the murders of Milk or Moscone, or the turmoil in San Francisco three decades ago. Pelosi referenced those events on her own and grew uncharacteristically emotional.
"I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made," Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message "are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume," she said.
"Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe," she added. "But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause."
Pelosi's office did not immediately respond to a request for examples of contemporary statements that reminded the speaker of the rhetoric of 1970s San Francisco.
The public anger during health care town hall meetings in August spilled into the House last week when South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" at Obama, the nation's first black president, during his speech. On a largely party-line vote, the House reprimanded Wilson.
The tone of the protests has sparked a debate over whether the criticism of Obama, the nation's first black president, is really about his race. Former President Jimmy Carter has said he thinks the vitriol is racially motivated, but Obama does not believe that, a White House spokesman said.
Asked about Pelosi's remarks Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner said he hasn't seen evidence that any of the public anger could lead to violence. And he took issue with Carter's remarks.
"I reject this resoundingly," Boehner told reporters, noting that he and other Republicans called Obama's election last year a defining moment for the nation. "The outrage that we see in America has nothing to do with race," Boehner said. "It has everything to do with the policies that he is promoting."
Yep, the possiblity of violence is growing with the hate-filled propaganda. I have a thread about this very thing "This could get ugly". Another Kent State incident is just around the corner - or something like it. Some folks hint there may be some kind of revolt against the government. But those same folks forget that the US Constitution mentions dealing with "insurection" and "rebellion" several times, effectively giving the government the go-ahead to defend itself. Best advice?
In the imortal words of Will Smith..............."Don't start nuttin' an day won't be nuttin."
There should not be a single, solitary soul on this board who could possibly take exception to this.
I'm with you on this. I just wish the wisdom of this admonition would have been offered back when Democrats and liberal zealots were casting George Bush and Dick Cheney as worse than Satan and Hitler. Let's consider the vitriol and hate speech that was lavished on Sarah Palin. The street runs two ways, y'all.
I see Pelosi's statements as self-serving, plain and simple. She is trying to quash dissent from the Obama-speak rhetoric and Democratic policy steam roller. Its OK for Democratic and liberal protesters to utter all kinds of nonsense, but lo, let a right leaning citizen get excited, talk loud, "get in their faces" -- as Obama exhorted his partisans last year -- and all of a sudden that's uncivil behavior?
I have heard talk, here mostly, of how bad things are getting and we'll have to take our government back, and when is the time? That is, in my opinion, a bunch of nonsense. I'm not sure the people who write that stuff take it seriously themselves. But it is wise for those people to think before they say that stuff. It is illegal to advocate the overthrowl of the US government and has long been so, notwithstanding any quaint arguments to the contrary.
There should not be a single, solitary soul on this board who could possibly take exception to this.
I take issue,,,,, issue with the fact that Nancy's hand in the photo is not her hand at all, and is, in fact, the hand of a giant man hiding under the lectern. I mean, C'mon, the hand is bigger than her entire head - can't be hers. Most likely it is the hand of Bill Clinton - as her facial expression virtually proves. A gratuitous moment caught on film - for sure.
I take issue,,,,, issue with the fact that Nancy's hand in the photo is not her hand at all, and is, in fact, the hand of a giant man hiding under the lectern. I mean, C'mon, the hand is bigger than her entire head - can't be hers. Most likely it is the hand of Bill Clinton - as her facial expression virtually proves. A gratuitous moment caught on film - for sure.
LMAO...
Look, she's a Washington insider. Anything goes, she could be anything...including a he! Would it surprise anyone for more than a moment??
Quote:
Let's consider the vitriol and hate speech that was lavished on Sarah Palin. The street runs two ways, y'all.
Hard to argue with that, Alsatian, but and I mean BUT...once again...It is only true dedication to your values and virtue that keep you from becoming that which you would condemn. (I just got through typing that on another thread moments ago...)
Look at Reverend Wright? Did not this board unanimously condemn his rhetoric and DEMAND that he and his parish be held accountable for that entire environment of hate? Did this board (me included) not expect Obama to be held accountable for so much as listening to that hate speech?????
Yet now, we'll condemn others for saying the same about the our side of the aisle? Really? Read on, my friendly and oh-so-proud neo cons....
Consider that the guy who showed up at a rally with an assault rifle, you know...that guy that almost everyone on this board sang gushing and glowing praises about,....that guy turned out to be a member of the same congregation where the preacher was praying for the death of the president. You remember that preacher, right? He was the guy everyone on this board thought was a wacko, right?
Then think about some of the lunatic comments on this board lately. We had members seriously talking of, firearms, civil war, and blood shed.
Pelosi's concerns are unfortunately not without foundation.
Pelosi's concerns are unfortunately not without foundation.
perhaps, but like some of the members here, although from the opposite side of the spectrum, her "concerns" are drenched in partisan motives...or it smells like it anyway. Let her condemn someone that has the same political views as her for violent hateful speech, to show that she has something objective to offer. If not, then I say she wants the rhetoric toned down, but only if it is rhetoric opposed to her agenda and thus her "concern" is invalid.
People have a right to be upset about the political goings on in this country and by nature some people are very emotional and sometimes let their emotions get the best of them. However, the overall amplification of emotion is not entirely their fault.
The politicians themselves are also to blame. Not only, of course, for sparking the emotion, through, imo, their own chronic and ever-increasing apathy for adhesion to the will of their constituents, but also, for lack of ability to quell that same emotion, through actions on their part. Actions which would include expressions of understanding and concern for what THEY ARE TOLD BY US. Humility, and readily admitting mistakes, instead of the status quo of pompous grand-standing and arrogantly misunderstanding who works for whom.
If, god forbid, some unfortunate event occurs, then, imo, they will share as much blame as those spouting angry and hateful rhetoric
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
Last edited by hillbillyhunter1; 09-18-2009 at 06:27 AM.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
I have got to the point I have to take medication for my stomach when I listen to her. I honestly think she is suffering from either Parkinson’s, alcoholism, or senility. She cannot get a full sentence out anymore without stammering, slurring, and getting lost in her thoughts. It’s painful to watch.
Another thing that is obvious, the liberals are invoking nothing but scare tactics. Let’s see, the only violence so far, has been by the unions on a black man at a tea party. A black man who was in favor of the tea parties. Isn’t it real funny how all the violence of the past has been at liberal rallies, by liberals. To the point of trashing neighborhood. I guess Pelosi is right. We will be seeing some violence. That is when her cronies start to attack the protesters for bucking their ideas.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Pelosi Fears Violence!!
