Peter Fonda Makes Veiled Assassination Threats

[liberalmike27]

http://xfinity.comcast.net/entertainment/popcast/7631174/peterfondamakescrypticreferencetopresidentobama/

This is kind of surprising. He said he was training his grandchildren to use long-range rifles. I can't say I haven't thought about trying to pick up a used one myself, but seriously, he wants his grandchildren to be in a battle where he's got ten percent, with the rich kids, and we've got 90 percent, the "have-nots" as he calls them.

And I'm not even sure what he's talking about, as it seems to me that Obama is more on the side of the have-nots. Never thought Peter Fonda was such a douche-nozzle--but I guess anyone can be brainwashed by FOX, maybe he watches too.

Seriously, to me this is just more bizarro world stuff, exactly the opposite of what reality would indicate. While the poorest are the ones you'd expect to be pissed, with actual conditions, one of the richest guys on the planet things he's got a problem. I'm left stupified.

[Myrina]

1. Too many drugs in the 70's for ol' Pete ...

n/t

[liberalmike27]

2. I know

But WTF? I never realized the Fonda family was racist, or weird like that--I don't get that vibe from Jane, but who knows. And it's so backward from what you'd think too. IF anyone should be pissed or worried about it, certainly it'd be the poor, as we're taking it up the wazoo, not the rich. They have gotten, from Obama, just about everything they've ever wanted.

Seriously though, if he gets reelected, and really starts doing the FDR thing (I'll believe it when I see it), I hope he hunkers down. Do everything by teleconference.

[wtmusic]

3. It seems like he thinks Obama isn't progressive enough

for allowing BP to continue drilling. Not "brainwashed by Fox". But rifles?

Maybe Peter will explain. :shrug:

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Some liberals have grown impatient waiting for change in the system and

maybe so has Fonda. I know he used to be as liberal as his sister and his father. I don't see his comments about target practice necessarily as racist as much as an political isolationist.

[liberalmike27]

6. I Can't Possibly

Think he meant that. Clearly he was talking about shooting Obama, not Republicans or right-wing radio hosts like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, or right-wing Supreme Court members, so Obama can appoint new less con-servative ones. Or perhaps owners, like Ruppert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, or whomever owns Clear-Channel.

Nope, he seemed squarely on the FOX side of things.

Clearly, a 90/10 war against the lesser earners isn't what he wants. It'd be like that scene in Gangs of New York, running through (or driving) the streets, running into houses, looting, pillaging, the police overwhelmed. Plus they all live in the same place now, so we'd all know exactly where to go. He should shut the FU.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. He wasn't talking about shooting anybody.

He was clearly referring to a potential civil upheaval where the 90% will be at war with the 10% - and Obama has made that likelier by his policies that ally with the 10% instead of the 90% - health care 'reform', undermining SS & medicare, no prosecution of banksters, no prosecution of torturers.

Obama had a chance to turn a lot of crap around, but he sided with the wealthy top tier. That was the reason for Fonda's "well, I don't want to say Obama". Not that he was targeting Obama, but that Obama is making the potential for class conflict more likely.

[liberalmike27]

9. Yea

He was talking about training his grandchildren to shoot people, with long-range rifles.

Clearly he'd have mentioned someone else, like Rush Limbaugh, or Ruppert Murdoch if he was a left-winger dissatisfied with Obama.

[Marr]

11. Is Rush Limbaugh the president?

I don't understand the calls to focus our anger on right-wing clowns who we know are not on our side. It's the Blue Dogs and "moderates" on our own side that make the wealthy agenda possible, and they're most deserving of our scorn.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Huh? Why would he mention Limbaugh or Murdoch if he was dissatisfied with Obama?

When you are upset with someone, do you talk about extraneous 3rd parties?

Let me put this in simple language for you.

Before WW2 there was a bad man getting ready to do bad things in Europe.
A leader of the English people went and had a long talk with the bad man, then went back home saying the bad man promised to not do any bad things.
The English leader was wrong. The bad man was lying.
Everybody blamed the bad man for what happened then; some also blamed the English leader for not stopping the bad man when he had a chance. And during the whole long war that followed, nobody tried to kill the English leader.

Get it?

Of course not - you don't get anything you don't CHOOSE to get.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. +1

That is exactly how I took it. :shrug:

[Obamanaut]

5. More responses at these earlier threads -->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1165313

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1175518

[xultar]

7. That is not veiled.

[liberalmike27]

10. Well Then

Generational!