26 thoughts on “Wow, DesJarlais’ Audience are Dicks

  1. This is the same guy who pushed antichoice laws but as a doctor slept with abd impregnated one of his patients and pressured her into an abortion. He says God has forgiven him, so it’s all okey-dokey. Clearly he lost his soul a long time ago.

  2. In answer to your question, no. This occurred to me in seeing some of the reactions to the Trayvon Martin verdict. Even if you believed that Zimmerman was not guilty under Florida law, this wasn’t a verdict to celebrate–someone’s child was still dead, and didn’t need to be dead. But I was appalled at the way people celebrated that verdict and made Trayvon out to be some sort of thug who had it coming.

    The people who did that, and the people who booed this girl, desperately need to believe that “the others” are criminal and less than human, otherwise it throws their entire worldview into question.

  3. That question was answered in the death camps. Not necessarily. People directly or indirectly responsible for that pain–and much worse–more often sentimentalize the “great sacrifices” they’ve made in being “tough enough” to do this “necessary” thing. “I’ll deport your daddy, little girl.” “We’ve got to do what we’ve got to do.” “We’ll send you both to the East.” “I’ll pull the trigger. For all of Us.”

  4. Pingback: SayUncle » The law is an ass

  5. YEAH! That mexican has a RIGHT to be here. OOOOOPS! NO HE DOESN”T HAVE A “RIGHT” to be here. He is here ILLEGALLY! Get your ASS out of this country and apply for immigration LEGALLY! It’s not like we don’t have an immigration policy. And take your spawn with you or put them up for adoption.

  6. “Is there some point when you’re [driving and coaching] a child [to share her] pain [in public] where you start to think about how evil you are, do you think?”


    Not that the idiot’s answer was anything to cheer about. I would have preferred to mention that her father chose to act illegally and therefore had to pay the consequences just as any father who is a criminal should. Her father is solely to blame and she should be made aware of that. Then, I would have mentioned how many illegals, and hopefully not her father, ruin other people’s lives by stealing their identity. I would have pointed out that there are children her age who have to struggle with creditors and the IRS who believe that they owe money they never earned because some illegal used their SSN to obtain a job.

    But you know, now that I think about it, the illegal father is the saint and citizens who wish to have a sane, orderly immigration system are the devil.

  7. Fiftycal and Ken, so what you’re saying is that, when faced with a kid in pain, you guys enjoy it and sit around and think of ways to add to it.


    You know, most folks aren’t proud to exhibit sadism against children. They don’t look for ways to justify it.

    But here’s the other thing that makes me laugh so hard at you dumbasses. You think you’re such great patriots, but you’re sitting here arguing that what happened to that little girl is justified because of her father’s crime.

    So, really, you don’t get what we’re trying to do here in the U.S. do you? Because that’s some founding fathers’ shit–that the person who commits the crime gets punished for it and not his family.

  8. So having a child is a get-out-of-jail-free card? Quick, let’s empty our prisons because anyone who wants to keep murders and rapists and thieves and other felons in prison are sadists who laugh at the children of those criminals. By your logic, we should not have tried to prosecute Ken Lay or prosecuted and incarcerated Jeffrey Skilling. You’re good with that, right? Had George Zimmerman gotten his wife pregnant, you would suddenly be OK with his acquittal, right?

    Hey wait, I’m a father. You can’t be talking to me this way, it might cause my children pain! Now, shut up and be quiet, because children!

  9. I’m astounded at the lack of basic reading comprehension demonstrated by some of the people who show up here. I don’t see, in this post, a discussion of immigration law. I don’t see, in this post, a discussion of the merits of DesJarlais’s political positions. I see a discussion of an audience cheering bullying. And yet people show up to yell about immigration law and how following it needs to trump all considerations of decent behavior in front of an audience — which kinda sorta bolsters the point the post was making, but isn’t responsive in the least.

  10. Really? You’re a dad and you come into a conversation about what dicks people who cheer at the suffering of children are and you side with the people who cheer? And I’m supposed to think this is some real position people who aren’t dumbasses take?

    Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of DesJarlais’ position, I’m saying that audience was a bag of dicks. Her dad wasn’t there. Remember. He’s being deported. The audience wasn’t cheering at the sight of her dad being deported. They were cheering because DesJarlais was a hardass to a little girl in pain.

    Why are you taking their side?

    I’m sorry, I just find this hilarious. Like, it’s not enough to have a position. If you can’t be assholes to children about it, it’s just not good enough. Like the crowd had no choice but to be a bunch of scary jerks.

    This is a real thing you’re arguing for–that, if you think you’re right, it excuses all the asshole shit you do in regards to it? Because, I have to say, that makes you a terrible, though funny, person.

  11. Well, first, I don’t share your assumptions that the cheering was for a little girl’s pain rather than for the answer. His answer, while less than inspiring, did not sound spiteful and I do not assume he said it because he wanted to compound some little girl’s pain. So, we are only left with the fact that you do not like his answer and in your book that makes it “hardass”. Why is the answer “hardass”? Because the little girl does not want to see her father punished for crimes that he committed and the big, bad man did not succumb to emotional blackmail.

    But since the argument must apparently remain purely in the irrational, emotional realm, I will expand upon my second point which I implied earlier with turning your quote; what do you have to say about the absolute evil monster who drove this girl to this town hall meeting and coaxed her into standing before a crowd they knew would not likely agree with them and share her pain publicly? Notice that the sympathetic and caring DesJarlais praised and thanked her for her bravery in the face of such monstrous evil that was visited upon her by whoever brought her there.

  12. Aunt B.

    Yes, and the number of people publicly being dicks in the name of a cause seems to be growing. I’m not sure if they are that way all the time or if it is the misguided way they think they will get things done politically. Either way those people aren’t helping anyone, except maybe the opposition.

    The point it stops being funny is when the politician is on the fence and those people are dicks toward the politician. You not only have to work against the opposition, you also have to work against the assholes on your own side.

  13. Maybe the audience was just glad to hear a politician for once NOT betraying his constituents and oath to uphold the law because that might hurt someone’s feeeelings? The personal situation is sad for her, and she is deserving of compassion as is any child without her father. But she does not deserve to enjoy her dad’s presence any more than someone whose father was taken away from her for punishment of any other crime. There are millions of other children whose dads are in prison for their crimes; they are just as absent and just as missed.

  14. You guys know that entering the country illegally isn’t a crime, right? You can’t go to jail for it. You aren’t even supposed to be arrested for it. It’s like not registering for the Selective Service. It’s a huge no-no and it has consequences, but it’s not a crime.

    Anyway, 8notch, I have bad news for you if you’re relying on DesJarlais to be a main of conviction. Ha ha ha. Whew. Do I. Ask him about abortion sometimes. His feelings about it and then how many he’s paid for.

  15. You guys know that entering the country illegally isn’t a crime, right?

    This is the kind of thing Orwell warned us about.

    You can’t go to jail for it.

    Oh, I see, you have decided to redefine terms. So breaking the law is not a crime unless you go to prison? Fines, community service, probation, restitution, and deportation are only given to innocent people by judges or juries after…um…losing a game of parcheesi? Criminal defense attorneys have been conning us for centuries then.

    So if entering illegally is not a crime, what about getting paid under the table or stealing people’s identities? Just more innocent mischief, I guess.

  16. Aunt B. Yeah, I heave heard that he is a sleazeball. Were I from there I wouldn’t vote for him; John Wayne has gotten my write-in a number of times. My comment was more towards hearing any politician not cave-in than so much in support of him as such. It just aggravates me to see the emotional-laden hit piece that the kid was put up to. Whatever side of the aisle they are on, using kids as props is low. Whether it is a 1 year-old holding a pro-life sign or a school age kid on stage for the Brady Campaign; sticking a child in front of the camera just for attention is a symptom of not having a strong argument.

    Those consequences? Getting deported, and not being there with your family. A child that misses her daddy. People who do things they aren’t supposed to don’t get to see their kids every night. Try sneaking into almost any other country and see what happens to you.

  17. 8notch, I don’t understand this idea that she’s somehow being used as a prop or put up to this. Kids roughly her age get bar mitzvah-ed and confirmed and we take their word that they understand the magnitude of what they’re doing. She’s losing her dad. Why would we assume that she has to be “put up” to standing up and asking DesJarlais if there’s some way to keep that from happening?

    Ken, I can’t tell when you’re just being outraged for show and when it’s sincere, but I’m not redefining anything. Are you sure you know how our country even works? I mean, it’s kind of Civics 101 that there’s a difference between criminal and civil proceedings.

    I’m just saying, maybe you shouldn’t be mad at me. It’s starting to be pretty apparent I’m just delivering news to you that your high school civics teacher neglected to tell you back then. I think maybe that’s who deserves your outrage.

  18. There you go again; assuming facts not in evidence. Since you know my state of mind, could you also tell me if I am sleepy at this moment or not please?

    I believe you have conflated the type of proceeding generally used with whether something is a crime or not. Something is a crime if the law defines it so. That the Supreme Court decided some time ago that the federal government may use a civil proceeding (meaning a lower threshold of evidence and certain rights not being applied) instead of a criminal proceeding for removal does not mean that entry without a visa and evading customs is not a crime. Oh look, a criminal statute with fines and prison terms.

  19. Did you read the statute? Let me give you a little hint: “shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both”

  20. I’ve been all through Title 18 now and I don’t see anything in there about cheering for the misery of the accused’s child as appropriate punishment for entering the country without proper documentation.

  21. Speaking of “assuming facts not in evidence,” where has it been factually reported that the child was brought to the event against her will and “propped up” by someone looking for a media opp? I’ve not seen anyone who was in that room or knows the family say that to a reporter. (If someone can provide a link to that, I’d like to see it.)

    By that logic, then, it’s equally as probable that the child is smart, interested in civics — especially because of the predicament her dad is in — and wanted to come to a public meeting to ask the man who represents her in Congress (even if she isn’t old enough to vote yet) what she could do to help her dad.

    DesJarlais failed a constituent in that respect by tossing off an unhelpful response to get a crowd reaction. He failed all his constituents — and, frankly, all decent people — by not calling down that crowd of gawping bullies when they started yelling.

    A good representative would have offered a thoughtful answer. A real man — a statesman — would have immediately called for quiet and then shamed that bunch of inbred heathens for mocking a child.

    Certainly, he has no responsibility for the crowd’s initial behavior. He does have a responsibility for failing to stop it when it continued.

    Perhaps DesJarlais only represents ignorant white cowards who like to gang up on little kids.

    Not surprising.

  22. When Campfield ran away from that little girl who wanted to talk about his idiotic welfare bill, a few people derided the person who “put her up” to it. That’s a distraction from the fact that these are reprehensible men with fucked up ideas and who are mystified and confounded by women in general and young women in particular.

    They represent the most inescapable Others.

Comments are closed.