Leonard Pitt Jr and the 'new civility' (cont'd): Tea Party Can Go to Hell, and I INTEND TO HELP THEM GET THERE

Why in the world does The Detroit Free Press continue to give this deranged hate-monger and race baiter a microphone? Unless they of course agree with his moonbattery. Last week, unhinged California moonbat Maxine Waters let her true feelings be known: Video of Maxine Waters That Media is Ignoring: Tea Party Can Go to Hell, ‘I INTEND TO HELP THEM GET THERE’. The video:

That show of civility was so sincere that it brought a tear to Pitts' eye, and was his muse for lionizing the hatefest: Finally, a message with backbone for the tea party. Pitts says that Waters has spine. I agree. Unfortunately there's nothing at the top of said spine, but anyway.

...Said spine was briefly glimpsed a little over a week ago at a jobs summit in Inglewood, Calif., in the person of U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters. "I'm not afraid of anybody," the California Democrat said. "... And as far as I'm concerned, the tea party can go straight to hell."

Yo Lenny - why leave out the part that came right after that- "and I intend to help them get there"? Furthermore, Pitts hypocritically excuses himself from

...Moreover, as hypocritical and self-serving as the tea party patriots' statement is, it is also correct: Telling people to go to hell is about as uncivil as it gets. I could never, in ordinary times, applaud such conduct.

But no one will ever mistake these for ordinary times.

This is the same Leonard Pitts Jr that blamed Sarah Palin supposed violent rhetoric for the Giffords shooting in January.I kid you not!: Leonard Pitts Jr: Sarah Palin was "theme music" to Arizona shooter. Democrats and GOP need to sit together at SOTU address to counteract it or something. This is directly from Pitts column back in January:

I invite you to ponder a controversy from the '90s. Some people, outraged by a violent heavy metal song called "Cop Killer" by a group called Body Count, sought to censor and boycott it out of existence, many saying it would cause cop killings.

...The same chain of logic -- and the same questions -- apply here. I do not believe alleged shooter Jared Lee Loughner was an average guy who, upon hearing some violent rhetoric from Sarah Palin, suddenly snapped and decided to shoot Giffords. But at the same time, I want to ask Palin: Should you really be providing that individual's theme music?

The man doesn't know when to quit. Weeks after the Arizona shooting that liberals used to attack Sarah Palin, the tea party, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and a whole host of liberal idiocy, Pitts never got the memo that the narrative had been discredited and that the shooter was a "left-wing pothead." Istead he used the occasion of the eve of Obama's SOTU address to attack Sarah Palin in particular. Again. The title of that column? This: Leonard Pitts Jr: Choose your seat as a gesture toward civility. Civility? Totally ignored is the regular hateful rhetoric of the left. And Leonard Pitts Jr is among those leftists that hurl vile, hateful rhetoric. Need I remind any readers of this blog some of the hateful things that came from Pitts keyboard? Accusing Christians of being like Nazis? (but then turned around a few columns later and used the Bible to push ObamaCare) Smearing the entire tea party movement as racist without a shred of evidence, and plenty of evidence to the contrary? How about this one for hatred: Tea Partiers are raaaaacist and need to go to the back of the bus. That's right, the back of the bus. How's that for hatred? He also likened an Obama gesture to one made by God almighty. Thee God. And thinks the gay agenda is equivalent to the issue of slavery, is pro-abortion but anti-death penalty, yet falsely blasted Republicans for not helping babies in Haiti after the earthquake. Hypocrite.

One last point about Pitts column, and it's way too easy to point out the lack of logic in this, but here it is anyway:

Seventy percent of us, according to a Gallup poll, think both tax increases and spending cuts ought to be used to reduce the budget deficit. That reasonable, balanced approach was not a part of the debt ceiling deal because the tea party threatened, credibly, to push the nation into default rather than allow it.

Two logical fallacies right there. First, 51% of taxpayers pay no federal income taxes at all. The next 40% wouldn't see their taxes increased at all. So why the surprise that 70% want tax increases... ON OTHER PEOPLE! But not themselves. The question should have been are you willing to pay more taxes yourself to reduce the budget deficit?' I would hypothesize that far less than 70% would have said yes. Second, not increasing the debt ceiling would not have precipitated a default. If your credit card reaches its limit, and you are denied an increase, you still will pay your mortgage bill rather than default. It's just that things you want (ObamaCare, welfare, tons and tons of waste and pork) are things you cannot afford. Good grief, Lenny!