Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Angle spox clarifies: We should worry about revolution

After refusing for days to clarify her repeated suggestions of a possible impending armed insurrection if Congress continues along its current course, Sharron Angle's campaign spokeman has now offered a clarification of sorts to the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Angle spokesman Jerry Stacy stressed Wednesday that Angle is not "advocating for a revolution." But he didn't back away from Angle's comments that trouble could be brewing.

"We should all be worried, but again, she's not advocating or suggesting a revolution," Stacy said.

So she's not advocating for armed revolution, but she remains convinced it's a distinct possibility. That should put this story to rest for good...

By Greg Sargent  |  June 17, 2010; 10:15 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Boehner distances himself from Barton apology to BP

Comments

Markey is slamming Barton right now.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 17, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Greg, a post on the ongoing hearing would be useful. Especially for those of us shamelessly watching the World Cup.

Mike, Ethan and others, please keep us updated if you can.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 17, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

He just got done ripping into Barton dismissing Bartons calling the 20 billion a "shake down" and a "slush fund."

These are the talking point being put out there by Rush, Hannity and the rest of the right wing on behalf of the oil industry.

I hope this is pressed into everyone's mind that if Republicans controlled Congress, this escrow account to help families getting crushed by the devastation down there would not exist. the Republicans, even in desperate times like this, still are willing to defend their masters to the very end.

Amazing how corrupted they are at times.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 17, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

BG, it's just opening statements right now. And frankly, you could write the testimony.

Dems: This is a critically important hearing to address major problems in the oil industry safety/environmental record, etc.

Rethugs: Obama is politicizing this disaster in an attempt to destroy the oil industry, etc.

Standard stuff, just the usual Dems looking out for America, Rethugs looking out for the industry.

I'm looking forward to some hard-edged questioning. Especially Stupak after his confrontational manner yesterday. More of that would be great.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Frankly, the way things are going, I imagine socialism to be making a huge come-back within 10 years.

Posted by: leoklein | June 17, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Congratulations to Bilgeman, his hate, and the other trolls--you win, I'm out of here. I've tried scrolling past them, but too many of the regular commenters engage them in back-and-forth worthless/meaningless debates and it ruins the thread. Several of you I'll sorely miss, but without the community's tacit agreement to not engage the trolls and/or the WaPo hiring somebody to man their otherwise insultingly full "Report Abuse" link, the comment threads have become unreadable. Please keep fighting the good fight, and I hope to see some of you in other spots on the web. . .

Posted by: Michigoose | June 17, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Marsha Blackburn:

The data shows the spill was caused by BP. But I'm going to blame Obama anyway.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Michigoose:

I wouldn't pack it in yet. I've come to your POV and will now act accordingly. Let's see what happens.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 17, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

All, we've lost Michigoose. So I put it to you all one more time: Most of you don't want comments blocked even if they're offensive, right?

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 17, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I want comments blocked and/or users banned if the user is first warned that they are consistently breaking the rules.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

@Greg

Wow. Rep. Gingrey (R-GA) just went the extra mile.

"Some have blamed lax regulation from the MMS over the last decade. But why then, didn't it happen under the last administration? Why did it happen a year and half into this administration?"

I expect this attack to spread.

Makes you wonder if they agree that 9/11 was Bush's fault, since he was in office when that happened. Probably not.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 17, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Greg, I don't believe it's in the interest of free speech to block commenters unless they cross a very well established line. I am however in agreement with michigoose (kelley), it's up to us as a community to decide how we engage. I'm out as well, except for the occasional link and comment. I'll certainly continue to read your blog.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 17, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

@Greg: "All, we've lost Michigoose. So I put it to you all one more time: Most of you don't want comments blocked even if they're offensive, right?"

Correct - don't block even if offensive.

And you just might lose me if you keep pounding the Angle drum - boooooorrrring.

Posted by: sbj3 | June 17, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I think you have to block them. It's not just a matter of offensive language. It's about not letting the site become a playground for grown-up little boys. Too many good political sites have seen their comment threads degenerate into posing contests between immature brats with lots of time on thier hands. It makes the threads useless and unreadable, so that they have to either close down or just be ignored by anyone with any sense. Don't let that happen.

Posted by: Virginia7 | June 17, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"Why did it happen a year and half into this administration?"

I expect this attack to spread."

Why did the U.S. Govn't cause the blowout preventer to fail and cause BP to use sea water vs mud in the well and let warning after warning continue without action?

This is clearly trying to shift blame from private sector to the public sector. No doubt written by a lobbyist.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 17, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry to see Michigoose leave, Greg. It could easily have been avoided if the site's 'Report abuse' button led anywhere besides the BP claims center switchboard.

Posted by: azportsider | June 17, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Greg, I honestly don't know the answer. I don't want to stop a variety of opinion here, and you can't legislate the tone and content of that opinion without shutting people out. While I don't think it would make us an echo chamber if we restricted the content here, I do want to argue and do battle with people's ideas at times.

And that's really the bigger issue and why it's so hard to sort this out. Sometimes the right wingers have good ideas and we have a genuinely spirited debate. But too often there aren't ideas but just negativity. I have a high tolerance for the bs on the right, but others don't.

One final thought. I still think we need a better apparatus here. I again suggest going to Balloon Juice to look at how the comment section works. It's really slick and friendly.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 17, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"It could easily have been avoided if the site's 'Report abuse' button led anywhere besides the BP claims center switchboard."

Sorry but this is pretty funny.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 17, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

anyone thinking of bailing: please give us just today to make the final decision.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 17, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for updates, all.

BBQ, if you're here, did you see the EJ Dionne column today?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061604169_pf.html

Shorter EJ: Dems need to become more like the GOP in terms of discourse.

Too simplistic I think.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 17, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"It's about not letting the site become a playground for grown-up little boys"

That's EXACTLY right.

If Bilge or anyone else literally CANNOT make their points without being thoroughly and INTENTIONALLY insulting, then that person has no business commenting here.

Hyperbole is one thing. Provoking people with comments is one thing. But intentionally and repeatedly insulting commenters is a totally different animal. If such a commenter literally CANNOT control his/herself they should be banned after being warned about their abusive behavior.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I don't understand why name-calling from either side is allowed and tolerated. It's simply ridiculous and does nothing to promote debate.

And Greg, if you're going to publish a policy, follow it, otherwise remove it.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 17, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Rep. Barton (R-TX) introduced the Energy Policy Act of 2005, part of which required MMS to act on drilling appeals within 30 days. Which everyone knew was impossible and meant, in practice, that drilling permits were automatic. Maybe someone should ask him why he did that.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 17, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

You know where I stand. I hate censorship, be it from the Right or The Left.

I see no reason to ban people for saying things that I disagree with, or that make me mad.

I see no reason to coddle those who say they are out of here, just because they do not like comments made by others.

I am capable of handling my own reading choices, on this blog, or in a library. I do not need some faceless nanny censor running interference for me.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 17, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

@Greg

"So I put it to you all one more time: Most of you don't want comments blocked even if they're offensive, right?"

The solution can be malleable, but efforts should be made to try and help.

I would think that constantly posting offensive material (according to WaPo's standards) would be grounds for revoking a user's registration, at least - which would bar them from posting.

You're going to get offensive posts, it's the internet. That's fine. The issue is that there are some users ONLY here to post offensive hate-fill scrawls grounded in ignorance. There aren't even that many, they just post at a ridiculous pace with the sole goal of disruption.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 17, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

First protester recess of the day.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 17, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Big disturbance at the hearing. One woman with oil on her face and hands yelling, "YOU NEED TO CHARGED WITH A CRIME," just before Hayward was set to begin his opening statement. Wow.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Greg:

"All, we've lost Michigoose. So I put it to you all one more time: Most of you don't want comments blocked even if they're offensive, right?"

Define offensive. By offensive do you mean "any comment that challenges the progressive litany", because that certainly seems to be all it takes to get one labelled a "troll" around here.

Speaking of which, is calling someone a troll offensive? If I whine and threaten to leave, can I get Ethan's and wbg's comments turned off?!?!?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 17, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Don't know if you care or not but, Scott, sbj and qb, as much as I find you completely misinformed and just plain wrong about just about everything, I don't find you all very offensive or coming here with the intention of purposeless disrupting this site.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 17, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

All, Boehner distanced himself from Barton already:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/boehner_distances_himself_from.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 17, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Agree with Mike on that. If Bilgey just stuck with his argument and canned the rhetoric (or whatever you want to call it), I think he'd make for a better adversary. He needs to go to blog comment finishing school.

But as I said, I have a high tolerance for sticks and stones.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 17, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

BBQ:

"The issue is that there are some users ONLY here to post offensive hate-fill scrawls grounded in ignorance. "

Who does this?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 17, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Just as there is no such thing as being: A Little Bit Pregnant, one is either pregnant, or not; there is no such thing as a little censorship. Issuing a warning, is censorship.

Once you let that camel get his head in the tent, he will soon occupy it.

On the day that any form of censorship comes to Plumline, that is the day that I am out of here.

What the hell is the matter with you liberals, who are calling for censorship.
George Carlin would denounce your whiny calls for someone to protect you from the rough and tumble language that exists through out the land.

Grow up.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 17, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

On the trollery. Obviously I don't know what motivates our trolls. But I am quite suspicious that the more persistent ones are indeed intending to disrupt the discussion here. They do this using several propaganda techniques all intended to hijack threads, either by changing the subject to an irrelevancy or initiating juvenile name-calling hoping someone will bite. Either way, the net effect is to kill reasoned discourse.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 17, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

ScottC, anytime I've been told my comments were offensive or insulting I have apologized. See, that is how civil society works. And, even if you have not pointed it out, I am sorry again if I have insulted you with any of my comments. I will try better. Now, will Bilge apologize for calling me a slave?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Btw, the hearing is adjourned until Noon so the House can vote.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Greg: Perhaps you could communicte with Ta-nehesi Coates as to how he wields his "ban hammer," and yet maintains the best comment section on the tubes.

Posted by: donovong | June 17, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Liam, just to be clear, I am also not in favor of censorship, unless clearly threatening. I prefer to be judged on the merits of what I may have to offer to the debate rather than upping the ante in foul language. That's my choice and I sure don't expect agreement from anyone. My other choice is to not participate and I don't expect anyone to change because of my choice. The Plumline is not as interesting to me as it used to be because of the comments, there are other blogs, and while I appreciate the job Greg does and others here, no offense but I'm gone.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 17, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

Do not give in to the calls for to Create something akin to the McCarthy Era Blacklist.

I see no reason to ban Bilgey, or any of the other Right Wingers who have been posting on here, on a regular basis.

If you start banning them today, then someone else might be assigned the role in the future, and will get offended at what I write, because they happen to have a Conservative political philosophy.

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions.

I will not help you pave it.

Grow up people. Birther Bilgey is merely the pathetic Nelson Muntz. Ha Ha!

Posted by: Liam-still | June 17, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

This is fun.

Cspan caller: wondering if the administration's not accepting help from foreign countries is just an excuse to drag their feet to force cap/trade on us.

Wow. These poor people are being so thoroughly confused by the GOP talking points.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

New emerging GOP meme:

We turned down international help and skimmers because of... UNIONS!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

As the recipient of many of bilgey's insults and diatribes, I empathize with lmsinca, but I am not going to leave because of his childlike name-calling. I certainly understand why it offends people. I just have a thicker skin. I am kind of a X strikes person. If behavior doesn't improve after several requests from the moderator, then I guess I could go with a banning, perhaps for a month or so. If they come back and resume their former odious behavior, then longer bans should be in effect.

lmsinca, Please don't leave. I look forward to your comments on this thread. I don't know michigoose that well, but I hate to see misbehaving posters drive out people who actually want to engage on the thread.

Posted by: srw3 | June 17, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm a big fan, Greg, and was active at several of your previous homes, but I rarely participate in the comments here because nearly every thread quickly devolves into a shouting match with a few trolls. Teresa Nielsen Hayden in 2005 wrote what I still consider the best outline of the requirements for an effective online forum:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006036.html


"The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions.

I will not help you pave it.

Grow up people. Birther Bilgey is merely the pathetic Nelson Muntz. Ha Ha!"

Right back at you -- "having no limits is more important than having a lively and informative conversation" is just as much "good intentions," and the Hell it creates is pretty obvious. If you have a choice between a forum where Nelson Muntz is jeering at you constantly and one where people like him are asked to leave, you would willingly choose Muntz?

Anonymity + no enforced limits = a conversation dominated by jerks. This is so universal in Internet forums it's not even controversial. Acknowledging that people have an obligation to be civil in order to participate isn't a "McCarthy Era Blacklist." Not everything is a slippery slope.

In the real world, it's not possible for people to ignore the trolls *and* have a real conversation. "Don't feed the trolls" works for sporadic comments, but not a constant presence. And as for "growing up," in the "grown up" world, people don't tolerate jerks.

Posted by: jimeh | June 17, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Every time some person declares they are leaving Plumline because of what Bilgey says, over and over, that is another scalp on Bilgey's belt.

Leaving is rewarding him.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 17, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Hayward totally stonewalling and being called out on it by Waxman. This guy Hayward is a disaster. Typical corporate CYA with NO accountability for the decision making. He's sorry for the spill but won't answer questions about decisions at the executive level. Totally unreal and obviously unacceptable.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Any questions about decision-making gets the same response from Hayward: our internal investigation is still on-going.

This same old tired lack of corporate accountability is so totally outrageous and completely undercuts Hayward's pathetic apology tour.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Of course we tolerate jerks, or else we become a police state.

Each and every one of us, is perceived to be a jerk, by some other people, with different points of view.

Where is this infallible, and impartial censor to be found. I will tell you where; some naive young intern, will be assigned the tedious task of reacting to the complaining emails, and in order to stop the flow of complaints, will give them the scalp they are calling for. If enough complaints start flowing in, from the other side, then that intern will give them your scalp or mine also.

I am ashamed of all you so called liberals, who keep calling for a Plumline Church Lady to enforce your personal sense of outrage.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 17, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"Just as there is no such thing as being: A Little Bit Pregnant, one is either pregnant, or not; there is no such thing as a little censorship. Issuing a warning, is censorship."

Oh, bull. Setting up rules for a forum and requiring people to abide by them is not "censorship." If the Post were to hold a public news forum, and a participant endlessly ranted and insulted everyone else in the room, asking them to leave wouldn't be "censorship." Blocking spam isn't "censorship." I could go on. Posting in *this particular forum* is a privilege, not a right.

The idea that any constraint on trolls will inevitably lead to "censorship" of people who express the "wrong" views is ludicrous, and easily disproved by the example of the numerous sites that have operated for years with limited, but not zero, constraints.

Posted by: jimeh | June 17, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

So Greg has persuaded me to give it 24 hours. So that you all know, what I has complained about specifically (and repeatedly) is the word "Slave" in the context and way that Bilgeman uses it; he is perfectly capable of making his points--whatever they are--without name-calling but he chooses not to. I may be too sensitive, but using "slave" the way he does by an avowed secessionist and racist is beyond the pale in this country and has no part in civil discourse. Do I think he should be banned? No. Do I think there should be a standard upheld for comments? Yes, and I think he's violated it in the realm of hate speech. If the "report abuse" link worked and his worst (and you have to admit, meaningless) screeds could be removed from the thread that would be one thing; likewise if he commented without using perjoratives (in the vein of quarterback and sbj and others I disagree with) it's not hate speech. Like I said, I've tried to scroll past him, but too often people engage with his tirades and the whole thread goes down the tube. Or down the intertubes, at least.

Posted by: Michigoose | June 17, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Dingel has a whole series of questions:

How much time did ________ operation save?
How much money did __________ operation save?

Responses: "I don't know" or "I don't remember"

Dingell: Please submit that information for the record.

Good stuff from Dingell. Gotta get all this info on the record.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 17, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

mich:

"I may be too sensitive..."

You are.

"...but using "slave" the way he does by an avowed secessionist and racist..."

How ironic.

BTW, "avowed"? Really? When did Bilge declare himself a racist?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 17, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Someone who advocates armed overthrow of the government in a democracy if they don't get their way at the polls, in the way that Sharron Angle has, is generally called treason. Someone who calls for such armed, treasonous overthrow is generally called a traitor.

Posted by: murphyj87 | June 17, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company