Toronto Escorts

Peter Fonda sounds like a reasonable , tolerant liberal....

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
Peter Fonda sounds like a reasonable , tolerant liberal....
Peter Fonda is a declared Republican and most of his views are right-leaning. He tore Obama a new-one for the Deepwater Horizon spill and suggested his grandkids take-up arms against Obama. I believe he's a big NRA supporter.

What he also is, is a crazed extremist for causes he supports, independent of his political party. Perhaps crazy - period.

His tweets above are insane!
 

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
You can find kooks and extremists amongst both Consevatives and Progressives. The only difference is that the Right Wing kooks tend to be more heavily armed.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
You can find kooks and extremists amongst both Consevatives and Progressives. The only difference is that the Right Wing kooks tend to be more heavily armed.
Not always, ask Steve Scalise.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Melania Calls Secret Service On Peter Fonda After Pedo Rape-Cage Tweet

The office of the First Lady called the Secret Service on Peter Fonda after the Hollywood actor called for kidnapping 11-year-old Barron Trump and throwing him in a cage with pedophiles. In a now-deleted series of vulgar tweets, Fonda wrote "WE SHOULD RIP HIM FROM HIS MOTHER'S ARMS AND PUT HIM IN A CAGE WITH PEDOPHILES AND SEE IF MOTHER WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE GIANT ASSHOLE SHE IS MARRIED TO.


The actor later apologized, saying in a statement later that he was distraught over children at the border separated from their families (though not so much when Obama did it), and that he "went too far."

Fonda's vulgar tweets drew heavy criticism over Twitter, with Donald Trump Jr. tweeting "You’re clearly a sick individual and everyone is an internet badass but rather than attack an 11 year old like a bully and a coward why don’t you pick on someone a bit bigger."


others shared similar sentiments, with some calling for a boycott of Fonda's new movie Boundaries, which comes out on Friday:


https://www.theepochtimes.com/first...or-calls-for-son-to-be-kidnapped_2569427.html

First Lady’s Office Notifies Secret Service After Actor Calls for Son to Be Kidnapped
By Bowen Xiao
June 20, 2018 5:38 pm Last Updated: June 20, 2018 7:13 pm

A composite image of actor Peter Fonda and Melania Trump. (Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images; Chris Kleponis - Pool/Getty Images)
ShareTweetShareEmail
Hollywood actor Peter Fonda got the attention of the Secret Service after he publicly called for the kidnapping of the first lady’s 12-year-old son, Barron Trump.

Fonda called for Barron to be “ripped” from Melania Trump’s arms and put in a cage “with pedophiles.” Stephanie Grisham, spokesperson for the first lady, told The Daily Caller that the Secret Service has been notified of the threat.

In the past few days, the 78-year-old actor also unleashed a series of disturbing tweets targeting both Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen and White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. The tweets have since been deleted.

Fonda called for the public caging and rape of Nielsen in a June 19 tweet, saying that she “is a lying gash that should be put in a cage and poked at by passersby.” He continued, “The gash should be pilloried in Lafayette Square naked and whipped by passersby while being filmed for posterity.”

Donald Trump Jr., the older brother of Barron, slammed the actor on social media and called on Sony Pictures to take action. Fonda stars in the studio’s upcoming film “Boundaries.”


“You’re clearly a sick individual and everyone is an internet badass but rather than attack an 11-year-old like a bully and a coward why don’t you pick on someone a bit bigger,” Trump Jr. wrote on Twitter in response to Fonda.

Fonda’s tirade didn’t stop there. On June 20, he called on people to target the children of Border Patrol agents, tweeting that “we should find out what schools their children go to” and “scare the [expletive] out of them.”

Fonda is the latest in a string of celebrities to issue violent threats against the president and his family. Comedian Kathy Griffin faced backlash last year after she posted a photo with a mock severed head resembling that of President Donald Trump.
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
with donald trump jr. Tweeting "you’re clearly a sick individual and everyone is an internet badass but rather than attack an 11 year old like a bully and a coward why don’t you pick on someone a bit bigger."
lol!!!!
 

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
Not always, ask Steve Scalise.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-monopoly-on-political-violence/


Why Does the Far Right Hold a Near-Monopoly on Political Violence?​

In the wake of the mass shooting in suburban Virginia last week that left House majority whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and three others wounded, conservatives have been furiously waving the bloody shirt. With left-wing hate filling half the screen, Sean Hannity blamed Democrats, saying they “dehumanize Republicans and paint them as monsters.” Tucker Carlson claimed that “some on the hard left” support political violence because it “could lead to the dissolution of a country they despise.” Others have blamed seemingly anything even vaguely identified with liberalism for inciting the violence—from Madonna to MSNBC to Shakespeare in the Park.

This is all a truly remarkable example of projection. In the wake of the shooting, Erick Erickson wrote a piece titled, “The Violence is Only Getting Started,” as if three innocent people hadn’t been brutally murdered by white supremacists in two separate incidents in just the past month.

In the real world, since the end of the Vietnam era, the overwhelming majority of serious political violence—not counting vandalism or punches thrown at protests, but violence with lethal intent—has come from the fringes of the right. Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project says that “if you go back to the 1960s, you see all kinds of left-wing terrorism, but since then it’s been exceedingly rare.” She notes that eco- and animal-rights extremists caused extensive property damage in the 1990s, but didn’t target people.

Meanwhile, says Beirich, “right-wing domestic terrorism has been common throughout that period, going back to groups like to The Order, which assassinated [liberal talk-radio host] Alan Berg [in 1984] right through to today.” Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, told NPR that “when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders.” The actual share is higher still, as violence committed by ultraconservative Islamic supremacists isn’t included in tallies of “right-wing extremism.”

A 2015 survey of law-enforcement agencies conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum and the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security found that the police rate antigovernment extremists as a greater threat than reactionary Islamists. The authors wrote that “right-wing violence appears consistently greater than violence by Muslim extremists in the United States since 9/11, according to multiple definitions in multiple datasets.” According to the Department of Homeland Security, “Sovereign Citizens”—fringe antigovernmentalists—launched 24 violent attacks from 2010 through 2014, mostly against law enforcement personnel. When Robert Dear shot and killed three people at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic in 2015, it became the latest in a series of bloody attacks on abortion providers dating back to Roe v. Wade in 1973. In the 30 years that followed that landmark decision, providers and clinics were targeted in more than 300 acts of violence, including arson, bombings, and assassinations, according to a study by the Rand Corporation.

But while the extreme right has held a near-monopoly on political violence since the 1980s, conservatives and Republicans are no more likely to say that using force to achieve one’s political goals is justified than are liberals and Democrats. That’s the conclusion of a study conducted by Nathan Kalmoe, a professor of political communication at the University of Louisiana. In 2010, he asked respondents whether they agreed that various violent tactics were acceptable. Kalmoe found that less than 3 percent of the population strongly agreed that “sometimes the only way to stop bad government is with physical force,” or that “some of the problems citizens have with government could be fixed with a few well-aimed bullets.” He says that while “there were tiny [partisan] variations on these specific items,” they weren’t “statistically significant on average.”

Ideology alone isn’t a significant risk factor for violence. “There’s a much stronger factor of individual personality traits that predispose people to be more aggressive in their everyday lives,” Kalmoe says, “and we see that playing out with people who engage in political violence.” Mass shooters are often found to have had histories of domestic violence, and that was true for James Hodgkinson, the shooter who attacked the congressional baseball practice in Virginia. Kalmoe says, “we often see that violent individuals have a history of violence in their personal lives. People who are abusive, or who have run afoul of the law in other ways, are more likely to endorse violence.”

Political animosity is similarly bipartisan. According to Pew, roughly the same number of Republicans and Democrats—around half—say they feel anger and fear toward the opposing party.

Which raises an important question: If red and blue America fear and loathe one another equally, and a similar number believe that political violence is acceptable, then why is there so much more of it on the fringes of the right?

Part of the answer lies in a clear difference between right and left: For the past 40 years, Republicans, parroting the gun-rights movement, have actively promoted the idea that firearms are a vital bulwark against government tyranny.



Call it the Minutemen theory of gun rights. While the Second Amendment was framed to protect government-organized militias at a time when we had a very small standing army, the right has promoted the idea that it’s “America’s first freedom,” integral to defending our other rights, since the 1960s.

It’s become ubiquitous, from the militia movement that arose in the 1980s and has seen a resurgence in recent years, to the armed standoffs at the Bundy Ranch and the Malheur National Wildlife refuge. It animated Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, as well as the 2013 Los Angeles airport shooting spree, a 2014 mass shooting in Las Vegas that left two cops and one civilian dead and a number of less dramatic acts of violence.

The belief that democratic government rests on the Second Amendment has become widespread among Americans; one poll found that about two-thirds believe that “their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.” But Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at SUNY Cortland and the author of several books on the politics of guns, says that’s a modern idea. While “there’s a long tradition of some in America feeling deeply mistrustful of our government—and there have been incidents throughout our history where people took up arms against the government—the more specific idea that there’s a right to rebel, or that somehow you can keep the government under control by taking up weapons, found its first serious expression in a law review article published in 1960. And the idea really took hold among a subset of Americans and a subset of gun owners, who argue to this day that this was part of the purpose of the Second Amendment. They talk about the Minutemen and the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence. The idea really took hold in the 1970s and 1980s when the NRA itself began to use this same kind of rhetoric.”

It’s also infused right-wing politics beyond the gun lobby. Watering the “tree of liberty” with the “blood of patriots and tyrants” is a common theme in Tea Party circles, where the Gadsden flag—don’t tread on me!—and loose talk of revolution blend seamlessly with mainstream anti-tax ideology and disdain for liberals. While a handful of Democrats competing in red states have run ads featuring them firing weapons, it’s become almost universal in Republican campaigns, where it not only marks a candidate’s opposition to gun-safety legislation but also signals that he or she is ready to wage war against the Washington establishment.

War as a metaphor for politics isn’t limited to the right, but it has become a constant in conservative discourse. “The first shots of the second American civil war have already been fired,” said Alex Jones earlier this month. “We are in a clear-cut cultural civil war,” according to Newt Gingrich. Pat Buchanan offered that we’re “approaching something of a civil war,” and said that it’s time for Trump to “burn down the Bastille.” “You ain’t got any idea of the war that’s raging outside the four walls of the church,” religious-right activist Dave Daubenmire told a crowd of antigay protesters last weekend. “Don’t you understand what’s going on? Don’t you know it’s a war? Don’t you know they want your children? Don’t you understand that those same people singing ‘Jesus loves you this I know’ want to kill us?” Then there’s the quasi-apocalyptic prepper mentality, which holds that we’re on the brink of social collapse so you’d better buy gold and stock up on ammo for when the shit inevitably hits the fan.

Nathan Kalmoe says that there’s “an important distinction to make between people who have more conventional views, versus people who have much more extreme views.” He thinks that, whether on the left or the right, those who are at least somewhat close to the mainstream “probably have a greater commitment to nonviolent approaches to politics and are socialized into nonviolent norms of how participation is supposed to work.” But on the right those lines have become blurred in recent years—Glenn Beck’s goldbuggery, the ravings of the “alt-right” and the Minutemen theory of gun rights have all become features of the larger conservative landscape, even if they’re not quite mainstream.

Kalmoe says that rhetoric alone “isn’t the main cause of political violence, but violent language and vilifying opponents can nudge people in ways that make them think and act more aggressively in politics.” He conducted an experiment that first measured subjects’ aggressive personality traits. Then he exposed them to two imaginary political ads, one that employed mildly violent political rhetoric and one that used neutral language, and he found that those subjects who had already displayed a penchant for aggressive behavior were far more likely to support political violence after being exposed to the violent rhetoric. So it’s not that violent rhetoric causes real-world violence so much as it can “make people who behave aggressively in real-life more likely to endorse violence against political leaders.”

Liberals believe that mature institutions and the separation of powers are what keep tyranny at bay, not an AR-15. If James Hodgkinson looked around himself and saw a president who acts as if he’s above the law and a Congress that’s working in the dark to strip away health insurance from millions of people to finance tax cuts for the wealthy but is unwilling to perform its oversight duties, and decided that he would stand up to tyranny with an assault rifle, he would have taken a theme that’s exceedingly common on the right to its bloody logical conclusion.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Seeming after a visit from the U.S. Secret Service Peter Fonda has now tweeted that he sincerely apologizes for his highly inappropriate and vulgar tweet about the president and his family.

Somehow I doubt his sincerity.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
..thats celebrities for you. Take a stance, have a difference of opinion, I don't mind that.

But the ongoing behavior exhibited by Hollywood elites is both childish, and disturbing. They didnt get their way, money can't buy everything... thats life.

So far its been death remarks or suggestions, constant profanity by Hollywood , physical threats by DeNiro and others. Mock stabbing, mock beheading, now the idea his son be handed to pedophiles?
Its quite revolting what actually goes though their minds, and how they behave when something doesn't go their way.
"Lock 'im UP!!!", "Lock 'im UP!!!", "Lock 'im UP!!!" … [repeat until elected]. Speaking of people who say extreme thing, when something doesn't go their way.

Pretty much a universal human failing; it's why we look for better from our leaders. But sometimes we elect people just like us.

Or worse.
 

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
If you have to dig up posts from Peter Fonda to find something to be outraged about then it’s probably not worth the trouble.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,940
68,452
113
If you have to dig up posts from Peter Fonda to find something to be outraged about then it’s probably not worth the trouble.
You misunderstand our Far Right brethren. They are unable to process policy, so they focus on "undeserving rich people" who have more $$$ than they do, but who are "disloyal Libtards" and not good Americans.

It's the reality TV approach to political analysis.
 
Toronto Escorts