Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia fails the civility test, big time....

Saw this earlier today on yahoo, it's interesting the guy supposedly did not call the proper authorities until after the media got a hold of it. Then he was aghast.

 

I'm confused about what you would have wanted him to do... it was wildly inappropriate he moved on. I think I would have done the same thing.
Rep. Paul Broun Asked At Town Hall: 'Who Is Going To Shoot Obama?'

Tuesday night at a town hall meeting in Oglethorpe County, Georgia an elderly man asked the abhorrent question, "Who's going to shoot Obama?" I was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question. After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities. I deeply regret that this incident happened at all. Furthermore, I condemn all statements--made in sincerity or jest--that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.

 

Besides he wasn't threatening Oboob, he merely asked a question.

 

quote one politician who said Bush should be killed or who threatened him.

 

I am NOT defending anyone who threatens a president’s life. That’s the whole point. I say that anyone who threatens directly or by innuendo should be arrested and/or investigated. All I am saying is that threats to Bush or any president or public figure should have be similarly pursued. Do you have evidence that the Secret Service ignored threats to Mr. Bush?

*edit* You edited your post before my response!

 

A threatening question, nevertheless.
Nobody should be asking at a political gathering when a political figure is going to get shot. As much as you hate Obama (or anyone who supports him), for once put aside your bitterness and realize what is going on here.

 

Threatening to shoot anybody and that includes threats against President Obama is wrong, do know their are some sick people out there with bad intentions to harm someone. Lets see, a psycho guy comes to a public forum and makes a threatening statement about, "who's gunna shoot Obama?" He gets ignored by the republican congressman, when the congressman turns to the next question, so as to not acknowledge this psycho's intention or threat at that time. What does not make sense, is to put the threats of a crazy man on the person that was being asked the question. I believe that is guilt by association. Just tell me, how is it that the congressman did anything wrong, other than totally ignore the psycho's intentions? Why the hatred on the republican congressman? when it should be focused on the psycho and his words.

 

...and your use of an offensive term to describe a very large portion of the American population is meant to achieve what?

 

Flame80, I believe the simple answer to your questions are that "Leaders lead by example" and the U.S. Rep. missed his opportunity.

I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the responsibilities of those in elective office. However, people in public service are, for the most part, held to a higher standard for conduct because they are perceived to be representatives for ALL the people of their jurisdiction (Municipal, State, Federal). As such, they serve our community/country best when they set the example for respect, tolerance, and unity (United States...).

Therefore, when someone in their presence makes even a casual threat to the life of a sitting leader, especially the President, and hyper-especially since AZ, the civic leader would serve us all well by immediately identifying such comments as unaccepatable ON THE SPOT. This would send a much more powerful message to the veracity and sincerity of his rebuke than "ignoring it" and later submitting a written statement of his actions/opinion after the fact.

I am not a fan of former President GWB, or any of his administration, but I would not stand for anyone in a public setting to allude to violence against any of them. To do otherwise is to set the stage for such thoughts to fester and become tragic. I cringe at the thought of the the harm to our country's psyche if harm should befall another President. Every U.S. citizen should decry any so-called patriot for "courting" such treasonous behavior. Our leaders have an even greater duty for setting that example.

Regarding reactions to the comment and this thread, I am appalled that anyone would think that man's comment is/was even the slightest bit humorous (Oboob, really? And that helps how?) or benign. I pray you find you better angels or if lacking a sense of faith, (which I support your rights to) then exercising a higher moral compass to which we can begin to draw down the toxic and dangerous rhetoric that has somehow become "acceptable" since President Barack Obama's term began.

The Republicans/Right-wing have made a mockery of our republic and the notion of democratic rule. Refusing to compromise and their blatant hypocrisy is so counter-productive, and it has only served to fuel the flames of political discourse. I swear it makes me feel they will not be happy until the plantations are back and women are just barefoot and pregnant without the right to vote.

Perhaps you may think I am just rambling on. Perhaps I am...a bit. Nevertheless, when there is a debate about what is the correct course of action for a Southern, Republican, Congressman of the U.S. House of Representatives, after he simply "moves on" from a question about a call to arms against our (first Black) President, during a public (or any) meeting, just what would you have me think?

The proper response in my humble opinion: "Sir, your question is out of line and tantamount to treason. I will have to call for security to take you into custody until such time as the Secret Service can interview you. I will not tolerate any such remarks against our Country or any of its leaders. Let us continue with more appropriate questions."

That is the tone I'd like to see set by Americans.

Progressive Eruptions: US REP. PAUL BROUN'S (R-GA) CONSTITUENT ASKS "WHO'S GOING TO SHOOT OBAMA?"

Paul Broun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"On November 10, 2008, one week after the 2008 presidential election, Broun drew national attention[13] when he criticized then-President-elect Barack Obama's call for a civilian national service corps, suggesting that Obama might use it to establish a Marxist dictatorship."..........I'll just bet he was shocked and appalled over the question.

 

Just give me a hint, next time a democratic congressman does the same, are you gunna be harsh really quick or just because its a republican representive its so much easier. Look its easy to see we see things differently but come on a man at a public forum, shows up and gets his chance to ask his question. yes a very absurd question, in deed, but you are right off the bat accusing this congressman of somehow being complicit. WHAT??????????????

 

The congressman should have ordered him out and had the man questioned by the police. Threatening anyones life is UNACCEPTABLE. The congressman if he had any balls, would have told the crowd that that kind of thing is unacceptable. By ignoring it, he is CONDONING IT.

 

Yes hindsight is the best foresight. As I said earlier in this post I would have ignored him and moved on but I would have notified the authorities. But I've learned something valuable from this thread, the next time I see anything inappropriate I'm going to call the person on it immediately. I hope you will do the same thing even if it's as insignificant as reprimanding a parent in public for an ill behaved child. Ignoring something is not always condoning it. Sometimes it's shock and disbelief.

 

I would agree 100% the man that made the threat, should have been apprehended immediately. but I see no act by the congressman as condoning anything.

 

HINT (and I repeat):".... people in public service are, for the most part, held to a higher standard for conduct because they are perceived to be representatives for ALL the people of their jurisdiction (Municipal, State, Federal). As such, they serve our community/country best when they set the example for respect, tolerance, and unity (United States...).

Therefore, when someone in their presence makes even a casual threat to the life of a sitting leader, especially the President, and hyper-especially since AZ, the civic leader would serve us all well by immediately identifying such comments as unaccepatable ON THE SPOT. This would send a much more powerful message to the veracity and sincerity of his rebuke than "ignoring it" and later submitting a written statement of his actions/opinion after the fact...."

The above applies to Republicans, Democrats, Independents: specifically public servants. If the tone of my response seemed harsh to you, I can only say that it was not intended that way. I stand by my statement but truly meant no offense to you or disrespect. If you are referring to my feeling appalled by those who see this as less than the treasonous-like affront it is than so be it. We either understand what it means to stand together under democracy or prepare to suffer the fate of other nations that have fallen because of their refusal to be tolerant and just and thus reap the whirlwind. "20/20 hindsight" someone has said. Yes. It is called history. "Those that forget, are doomed to repeat it."

 

The whole room broke out in laughter and he left it unchallenged! NOT FUNNY!
Check it out for yourself. There is common phrase that applies here "Silent acquiescence." Is this the type of attitude you want pervading our public discourse as acceptable? Towards our President? Really? I am not suggesting a police state just standing up to brazen ignorance and intolerance. It was not like this before. Why is it OK now?

**warning** I just noticed this is s blogspot URL and another thread gave a virus warning for blogspot. I did not have any problem, maybe because I use Mac not PC. I got the sight from a search engine, perhaps PC users could search for a non-Blogspot site with this info. Progressive Eruptions: US REP. PAUL BROUN'S (R-GA) CONSTITUENT ASKS "WHO'S GOING TO SHOOT OBAMA?"

 

The person in question is only "offended" because he thinks only in Democrat vs. Republican. He loves to imply in every post that somehow if the politician or person who causes the problem was a Democrat (or a liberal), that somehow the general consensus of this board would either ignore it or not be as critical. Even with statements that purposely leave out political affiliation to convey a point of objectivity, he puts them right back in to make it partisan.

 

The partisanship is strong on both sides of this forum VB. You don't need to look further than the OP of this thread to see it. REPUGNANTCAN? It's very rare to hear one member of the liberal side call out one of their own for it, or vis a versa. What do you guys expect when threads are designed to inflame?

 

You do have a point. It's true that there's more people who are "liberal minded" active on the board and several times we may see someone use a derogatory term to describe Republicans or Conservatives go by without the slightest response from them.

However, as a person who has been in several debates and/or arguments with people on the ideological left over the years (despite leaning to the left on most issues myself), I don't feel that I'm required to point out every single instance of someone using an inflammatory word in a thread or in an OP. When certain liberals look at me and think that I've grown soft or weak because i'm not "liberal enough", or labeled an apologist or "blind" when I defend the current administration for certain actions that may have not been perfect but not completely wasteful (just to give a few examples), I get just as annoyed at them like the ones who constantly yell out "libtard". It's not my fault that some of the conservative base on this board doesn't remember (or cares not to notice) when I critique someone who is supposed to be "one of my own", nor is it my responsibility to increase my efforts to target those conservatives may have grievance with, in a matter they would want me to, in order to appear more neutral. I gave up trying to please everyone a long time ago because no matter how hard you try you still wind up pissing someone off.