Garofalo == dangerous. Gun-toting teabaggers == A-OK.

What a dope. What a maroon.

Positively ultramaroon.

I always trust the Shorter, so I won’t click on the link, but … jeez … the hard work and sacrifices of Steve Forbes? In the name of Zod, who do they think they’re kidding?

But Garofalo IS far more dangerous than the mopes with the guns. as she is armed with ideas and a brain.

Ideas and brains are the most dangerous combinations in the world to the Powers that Be. And those who aspire to the level of Beltway Pundit/Aspiring Village Idiot.

How dare that Garafolo woman incite VIOLENCE? The commenters over there are strongly opposed to VIOLENCE:

I’d argue that it’s most dangerous to her.

Someday she’ll be shooting off her mouth and someone will give what she’s asking for.
democratsarefascists | 10.03.09 – 5:59 pm

You’re far too kind to Jeanne Garofalo. Jeanne Garofalo is a would-be Dr. Mengele.
Ben | 10.04.09 – 12:59 pm |

So, I hope that Garafalo keeps calling people racists. One day, who knows, she might even call me a racist and I’ll have legal permission to rearrange her fucking face.
lawyer | 10.04.09 – 10:49 am |

What she is saying is just like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

No … but what she is saying are “fighting words.”

If someone comes up to you and calls you a racist or otherwise provokes you with fighting words, you are legally entitled to beat the shit out of that person.

So, I hope that Garafalo keeps calling people racists. One day, who knows, she might even call me a racist and I’ll have legal permission to rearrange her fucking face.
lawyer | 10.04.09 – 10:49 am | #

Kids: Don’t try this one at home!

The comments section there is riot of ignorance. The Klan was leftist, & Republicans passed civil rights over Democratic objections. I am not making this up.

Garofalo of course uses the new snarky word that the loony liberals have fallen in love with, to label the Tea Party attendees, one which most Tea Party attendees had no idea what it meant and needed the deviants on the left explain to the rest of the world. The fact that liberals knew what that word meant without looking it up says more about them then it does the people they are trying to smear. . . .

.

Like more liberals know how to use that online OED function?

…Now we’re taking back the word “Teabagger” like gays took back the word “queer.” We’re here, we’re Teabaggers, and we’re in your face!

…Which gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “junk in your trunk.”

It’s interesting the cons aren’t attacking the other members of the panel who echoed pretty much everything Garafalo said, including Thomas Friedman.

(Guests: Thomas Friedman; Ohio Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur)

Janeane Garafalo was spot on in most of her commentary. But, you know, unless a celebrity is a Republican, they should just shut the fuck up.

She’s also armed with a father who can’t stop loving the conservative movement – thus she constantly engages on “their” level and offers us insight into the mind (and its constant gyrations to hew to the meme) and reports from the faultlines. Good on her!

Once again, the far right makes the mistake of posting the actual video (where Garafalo is much more on target than her critics).

“…Now we’re taking back the word “Teabagger” like gays took back the word “queer.” We’re here, we’re Teabaggers, and we’re in your face!”

I suppose we should be glad that they’ve finally got the definition right, huh? My gawd, these lunatics sicken me.

Why would anyone take anything Jeanene Garafolo says seriously? Although, I agree with many things she says, I, personally, can’t stand her. To me, she’s a poseur and a phony.

I just assume that if there IS a god, he created wingnuts solely for the amusement of rational people. And if you believe that there is no god, well, why not waste a few extra minutes finding out which level of Dante’s Inferno is right for you?

http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv

The ideas and the brain are frightening enough to the JammieWearingJackass, but the fact that they are attached to a vagina that he doesn’t control scares him a lot more.

As a member of the African diaspora that is now successful and stable in the US, I’d like to answer your question about African Americans. Unlike African Americans, I did not face structural and institutionalized racism in my own country, my father was not lynched for loving a white woman, my mother was not beaten for trying to vote, my grandparents were allowed to read and write and own property. Thus, my family had knowledge, skills, wealth, and pride to pass down to each generation. The question is not really why African Americans are they way they are, history answers that. African Americans still struggle to be treated ans equals. The real question is why are the poor white trash still poor white trash hundreds of years after the Mayflower and institutionalizing superiority based on the color of your skin. If America gave you every opportunity to succeed based solely on the color of your skin, white people, ask yourself why you are now a failure and scared that “those people” are taking over your country and your government?
No thanks | 10.04.09 – 5:49 pm | #

OWWW! DIRECT HIT!!!

You agree with most of what she says but think she’s phony and shouldn’t be taken at face value.

F the what now?

By extension should we not take you seriously?

We’re here, we’re Teabaggers, and we’re in your face

Methinks it would be (literally) the other way around, no?

I’ve always liked Jeanine, but now I gotta wonder: http://burningheretic.wordpres…..-of-times/

WTF is the right’s obsession with Jeanene Garafolo? She really is not that big a name and does not really have all that much influence (though I often like what she has to say). These people seriously need to get a grip.

I think they have co-opted that phrase, too. It shall now be “junk in your grill”.

“Junk” is passe if they’ve co-opted the term. Ever notice that the uvula looks like a limp tea bag hanging at the back of one’s throat? We need a t-shirt slogan that utilizes the word “uvula.” I like the concept of an insult that might actually get a wingnut to consult a dictionary.

My vote: “UVULATION” will make you go blind!

This guy sounds like as good a lawyer as Oily Taintz. I’m trying to recall where in the law it states that you can beat the shit out of someone if they say something to you that you don’t like; can any real lawyers out there help me out?

No, the teabagger movement is all about sticking their nads in America’s face.

It’s like the truck nuts of policial movements.

My point is that you can’t.

First of all, the concept of “fighting words” has nothing to do with one’s perceptions of need for self-defense.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a Jehovah’s Witness for calling a city marshal a “damned Faschist” and a “goddamned racketeer” under a statute providing that “[no] person shall address any offensive, derisive, or annoying word to any otherr person who is lawfully in any street or other public place . . . .” The Supreme Court of New Hampshire construed the words to reach only words which have a direct tendncy to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.” This definition was approved in the Chaplinsky decision. (315 US at 568 (1942).)

The contemporary doctrinal approach is probably best illustrated by the decision in Cohen v. California, where the US Supreme Court refused to classify a vulgarity appearing on the back of a jacket–”Fuck the Draft”–as “fighting words.” Justice Harlan’s opinion pointed out that offensive utterances are necessary side effects of free expression, and a power to maintain “a suitable level of discourse within the body politic ” is inherently illimitable. In other word’s one man’s obscenity is another man’s poetry. Except in situations where the audience is captive or where the broadcasting of an offensive message would intrude into the privacy of the home, government may not purge public dialog of unwelcome words or symbols, just as it may not prohibit unwelcom ideas. (403 US 15,25-26 (1971).)

In Terminiello v. Chicago, the US Supreme Court refused to consider whether race-baiting speech that attracted “an angry and turbulent crowd” was itself constitutionally protected. The high court reversed the speaker’s breach of the peace conviction because the statute punished speech that “stirs the public to anger [or] invites dispute” as overbroad, and void on it’s face. (See boldface for the legally problematic statutory language.) Justice Douglas, who wrote the opinion, further stated: “A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It amy indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”(337 US 1, 4 (1949).)

Note that there is nothing in the above about feeling free to rearrange a speaker’s face if you disagree with what s/he says. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true: Law enforcement officials are obligated to let people speak, regardless of how odious the message may be, as a Jewish community with numerous holocaust survivors discovered when they attempted to pass an ordinance prohibiting members of a Neo-Nazi group to march through their community wearing swastikas. (Collin v. Smith, 447 F.Supp. 676 (N.D. Ill. 1978).

h/t American Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe (2d ed).

Self-defense is a defense to certain tortious or criminal acts. For the sake of brevity, I will address the civil aspects.

Self-defense is a privilege that applies if it is necessary for a person who is attacked to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to himself, when there is no time to resort to the law. There are rules:
1. Apparent Necessity: The person asserting the privilege must reasibably believe that he is in imminent danger bodily harm. He is held to the reasonable person standard in this belief. In other words, the law doesn’t expect him to be a hero, but an ordinary reasonable person must perceive his situation as being dangerous enough to warrant taking the action.

2. Reasonable Force: The privilege is limited only to the force necessary for protection agaisnt the threat. Excessive force is NOT privileged. For example if you think you can whip out a gun and shoot an attacker who raises his hand to hit you in a bar fight, make sure you’ve memorized the phone number of the criminal defense lawyer who advertises on late night TV. Similarly, there is not privilege to continue to use force after an attacker has been disarmed.

3. You are never privileged to used deadly force to protect property.

If someone comes up to you and calls you a racist or otherwise provokes you with fighting words, you are legally entitled to beat the shit out of that person.

He’s either full of shit or the crappiest lawyer ever, because no fucking way does calling a man a “racist” give him a free hand to commit assault.

Umm – recovering lawyer here – without looking it up *g* – I’d say that the concept of “fighting words” varies by state. If the state allows a self-defense of “fighting words,” such words are usually pretty well defined at least by case law.
No, “racist” is not one of those.

Now, the scenario this idiot posits – that a “librul” will just walk up to him out of the blue and yell, “you racist,” might be slightly different….but that’s as logical as the rest of his statement.