We've got a new nomination. If genuine, it's probably worse than anything we've mentioned so far in this thread.

Apparently Jules Manson, a libertarian who once ran for city council in Carson City, NV said of Obama on his Facebook Page: “Assassinate the f----- n----- and his monkey children”.

I said "if genuine", because so far I can only find the story on those kind of Far Left websites, where the news reporting is indistinguishable from the kind of campaign speech a politician makes to his own choir.

Here's one:

California politician advocates assassination of Obama and family

The article doesn't tell you much about the guy, other than that he's a "Tea Party Darling". I can't confirm that he's even a Member, much less a Darling.

This article says that his Facebook page had been removed. It's not, I still see a page there, but all but one (an apology of sorts) of the postings have been removed from the wall.

Jules Manson

This user has 2,676 friends, so I assume it's a real account. But with these kind of stories, it's hard to be sure.

Here's another site with the story:

Ron Paul Supporter: “Assassinate N-Word Obama And Monkey Children”

This one tries its level best to get you to feel that Ron Paul made the statement, rather than Manson. There's no picture of Manson accompanying the article, only a picture of a Ron Paul t-shirt (!!). This story doesn't mention the Tea Party at all, which leads me to think that the first story just made that up. This story tries to pin the blame squarely on Ron Paul.

With sources like these, it's possible that the whole thing is made up, and that this Manson guy doesn't really exist at all. My feeling though is that he does exist, that he's a libertarian kook who really said this, and that various Left Wing kooks have seized on it to try to tar everyone that they don't like.

So, my feeling is that if a politician (even a failed, local one) said it, that makes it worthy of nomination nomination. It's certainly troubling that anyone with any pretense of holding public office would say anything like that. I don't necessarily agree that the quote shows us what Ron Paul is like, or what the Tea Party is like, or what all libertarians are like, or even what all atheists are like (the second link quotes him as saying “I may be an atheist but Ron Paul is my God.” But it does show us what Jules Manson is like, and that he doesn't deserve to be elected dog catcher.

I got this story from a friend on Facebook, that I don't know very well, and who seems like a reasonable sort, but who seems to rely a little too much on sources like these. I sometimes respond to stories of this sort, and I think he resents it, but hasn't chewed me out, since I've never been rude about it. I made the same point to him, about if this showed us what atheists as well as Tea partiers (assuming Manson even IS one) were like, but no response yet.

As the people of Israel said so wisely, "Give us a king!"

I thought that was Aesop's frogs. But I'm having trouble applying that to the current situation.

Monarchy = no politicians. At least none that do not live in fear of the king saying "Off with his head! He doesn't seem to be using it anyway."

Well, Ed, you might think that Israel was wise in wanting a king; but, if you *believe* what the Bible says that God thought about Israel's request for a king, you would NOT say that Israel was "wise" in asking for a king.


Chess Fan

Actually they were warned that getting a king wasn't a wise decision. You'd get taxed, you'd have your children sent off to be killed in a war started by someone trying to deflect attention from his own failed rule, cruelty would increase like whips on backs and waterboarding, the riches meant for the people would be taken by the rulers and corporations, yep, it's all in there hidden in the middle.

Is all this a response to the Jules Manson story, or to a previous post?

That was a response to Ed's post where he said "As the people of Israel said so wisely, "Give us a king!"". I have no idea what he was responding to as I was skimming through posts rather than reading. I figured it was Ed and his push for the monarchy again and wanted to point out monarchy isn't the answer (probably better than democracy and anarchy though).

Well, I'm going to have to nominate Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke what he called her. We're nominating, divisive, over-the-top rhetoric that's harmful to public debate, and what he said absolutely qualifies.

I see that in his apology today, he commented that he "stooped to the Left's level", which is a comical way of trying to shift the blame. It's true that plenty of people on the Left do the same thing, without taking much heat for it (Bill Maher is famous for misyogynistic rants, some of which I need to nominate. But of course it's absolutely wrong to say that hate speech "belongs" to one side and when the other side does it, they're just borrowing it. Most of the people I know on both sides believe that, but they're mistaken.

Limbaugh stoop? Why, I thought he'd invented it.

I see that AOL is now pulling its ads. That makes eight advertisers. Maybe we will finally be rid of him.