Democrats & Liberals Archives

Whoever it turns out is responsible...

Is this they way we should conduct our politics?

As of this moment, I cannot find definitive information on whether Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is dead or not, but the attack alone should be a wake up call for those in political leadership, and those who talk about “second amendment solutions” to political rivalries.

America is blessed with a system that allows Americans to correct their system without having to utterly destroy it, where those with greivances have every kind of peaceful outlet imaginable for offering their opinions, and persuading others to them. We don't fight over religion, we don't kill each other in large numbers over ethnic conflicts. That is due in no small part to the legacy of the framers, who created a constitution where effective government power was pitted against effective limits to what could be done with that power and where.

When somebody walks up to a Congress person and shoots them, perhaps because they didn't like their stance on an issue, perhaps out of loyalty to some cause they believe noble, or perhaps because they view members of that party as their mortal enemies, they are depriving the rest of us of a government by rule of law, where the amount of force one can muster is not the underlying foundation of one's political power.

It's worse that a number of people were shot and killed as well. Should you have to look out for your own safety, simply because you go to support the politician, or simply ask a question of them?

Those who secretly thrill at such violence should take note of this: what can be inflicted on one member of Congress, can be inflicted on any and all, and if violence escalates against once side and remains unchecked by your opposition, it can inspire those on the other side to take up that violence in turn as a means to even the playing field, or even the score.

We live under the rule of law because truly legitimate government comes from the consent of the people, and only under a universally applicable body of law can that people be secure in the knowledge that their government derives its authority not from the end of a gun, or a club, but from their votes and freely given political support.

Those politicians who are so irresponsible as to talk of "second amendment solutions" should look at the violence in Arizona and understand that the same can happen to them if the tone of politics is allowed to get so ugly. If the Second Amendment is the solution to your grievance, if you don't leave that to the side, you can be "solved" this way as well.

I don't want that. I want sanity. I want peace. I want our system to work like the Framers intended it to, without revolutionary violence, with the rule of law guaranteeing that each of us can freely exchange our views, and attempt to persuade others of their own free will. The alternative is a nightmare of violence that will take it's price in blood from all before it's over.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2011 2:44 PM
Comments
Comment #316505

Stephen,

I don’t know who is responsible or why they did what they did either. Rep Gifford is still alive at this time, and is still in surgery.

I just got a little tid-bit that may be of interest…Arizona politics ain’t for the weak at heart. This is from a list of coming events as printed in the Tucson newspaper:

Sat. 6/12/10, 10:00AM Get on Target for Victory in November-Help remove Gabrielle Gifford from office-Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly

Kelly was the TeaPublican running against her last year.

When Her father was asked if she had any enemies, he responded, “Yes, the whole tea party”.

Just sayin’…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 8, 2011 4:04 PM
Comment #316508

Marysdude-
Yeah, the problem with rhetoric like theres is that at some point, somebody’s stupid enough or foolish enough to follow through.

Dehumanize the other side long enough, and it becomes easy to put aside conscience, and believe you’re doing it for the good of the country.

We don’t know the gunman’s motivation just yet, but when you, for political reasons, height the paranoia of half the nation to the point where they think their lives and freedom are endangered in a fundamental way, incidents like this will happen.

I am proud to believe that “second amendment solutions” are an extreme last resort. I’m proud that I never, during the Bush Administration, called for any harm to be done to any Republican. But then, being proud of that shouldn’t get me any special credit, in my opinion, because that should be what any of us believe.

Our focus should be on the system of peaceful persuasion that our forebears left us, a system that has grown to embrace more and more American citizens with the original promise of equality in the eyes of the law, and liberty in the face of a strong government that does the will of the people. That’s what helps us maintain our Democracy, what makes our nation unique among both Democracies and Republicans in world history.

Violence, even the threat of violence is a violation of that system. Those who think they can legitimately take control of a Democracy through violent means are lying to themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2011 4:24 PM
Comment #316511

This violent act is an abomination of the highest order! My thoughts and prayers go out to the staffer who was killed, Congresswoman Giffords and the other innocent victims.

House Speaker John A. Boehner said: “I am horrified by the senseless attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and members of her staff. An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured and their families. This is a sad day for our country.”

Stephen, with all due respect, people who politicize tragic events like this and use it to broadly paint an “us against them” narrative are shameless.

Each time a tragic event occurs (e.g., remember the guy who crashed his plane into the IRS building?), people try to assign blame. While not an avid hunter or gun enthusiast, gun ownership is legal. Likewise free speech is legal. It isn’t guns or freedom of speech that kills innocent people, it’s criminal behavior and/or those with mental disorders.

I was heartbroken when I read the headline about Rep. Giffords and the other victims. The Congresswoman and others were simply trying to reach out to constituents in an open and honest way at the supermarket site.

To be sure, people like Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle and others who use controversial statements about the ‘second amendment’ have a constitutional right to express themselves (even if many find it distasteful or unorthodox). If people do not like such speech, they can either ignore it or fight back with their own commentary. Moreover, people can decide on whether such persons ‘get their vote,’ if running for office. But to ascribe blame to the Tea Party, Republicans, or any other group, is bereft of reality.

And even if the US were to single-handedly impose the strictest gun laws in the world, people who are criminal in nature and/or mentally disturbed will find a way to get firearms.

Just look at gang members, drug dealers, common criminals and other felons. How do they get guns? Illegally, that’s how. As long as guns are manufactured in the world, guns will be available.

The Foot Hood shooter, the kid who just shot his principal and vice-principal in Iowa last week, the guy who pulled out a gun at the board of education meeting in Florida last month - these incidents will sadly always be with us.

For any person to ‘blame’ a political party, group of people or constitutional right are finding a way to appeal to motive and thus try to invoke the association fallacy.

I sincerely hope Ms. Giffords pulls through and that the assailant or assailants are caught and prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. Speaker Boehner is correct when he said: …”an attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve.”

Indeed, it is a sad day in our country.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 8, 2011 4:58 PM
Comment #316513

Kevin L,

I don’t know who the shooter is, nor what his motivations were. My point in entering these items of interest have to do with ‘consequence’. One of my observations about Republicans, and by extension Tea Party members, is that they do not seem to understand that there are consequences to their words and actions.

Much fear mongering has gone on about the harm being done to our beloved country by those ungrateful, treasonous ‘liberals’. It is spouted in hateful ways over the radio waves (Limbaugh), television (Beck, et al), and from the campaign trails (the event list I included above). Many of the national figures on the right have not only sat on their hands while these things have occurred, but have given tacit approval as well.

The word of the day: CONSEQUENCES

There are consequences to going back to the good old days of unregulated corporations and finance houses, and there are consequences to how we verbalize our opposition to someone else’s political vision, and there are consequences to ‘winning’. We may very well be reaping some of those consequences right now on a street corner assemblage in Tucson, Arizona.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 8, 2011 5:13 PM
Comment #316519

The shooter had a U Tube site. He rambled much like the Unibomber, and ends his last transmission with several references to the Constitution, which he says is not the real Constitution.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 8, 2011 6:12 PM
Comment #316521

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHoaZaLbqB4&feature=youtu.be

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2011 6:35 PM
Comment #316522

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/8/934360/-Who-is-Jared-Lee-Loughner

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2011 6:41 PM
Comment #316523

Kevin L. Lagola-
Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people a lot easier. If we don’t recognize that simple, sensible fact, then we will never regulate guns in any intelligent way.

As for Us vs. them?

Well, I didn’t appeal to that. I merely said that those who talk about political violence as an option to get their way are irresponsible, even if most of their followers aren’t. Just this last year, your party made significant gains based on peacefully held election, and now has more power to address their grievances in a peaceful way. I accept that, galling as the poll results were to me.

What I had a problem with was folks talking about guns being their alternative solution to getting their grievances redressed.

I believe in the rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of political differences. If you want to turn this into an “us vs. them” argument, where would you really fall in this argument? The answer is obvious, so you should have no fear of being lumped in on the other side. The only people who would be lumped in there are the people who have made threats of political violence, secession, and other extralegal methods of grabbing power, in case they don’t get their way. And really, why should you have any sympathy for them, being a member of the Party of Lincoln, the party that claims to love the Constitution and the rule of law?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2011 6:46 PM
Comment #316530

Weary Willie-
There’s an actual meme for that introductory video: Insane Troll Logic.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2011 8:31 PM
Comment #316538

While I don’t think this has anything to do with gun control, I am disturbed by a lot of politically insane speech. I’m the last person who believes anything should be censored, but to all those who bemoan these nutballs, we restrict sexual pornography on our airwaves. Political porn may be much more dangerous. It seems to me that there should be social consequence to nutball speech. Rush, Palin and many others, I’m talking about you.

I recently bought Phonoscope cable TV service. They have a local channel called Houston Business channel. It is 24/7 Alex Jones/ conspiracy theory nonsense. They run ads on the other channels frequently. Who is funding this?

If you listen to a lot of the average joes in Texas, they completely buy into this nutty nonsense, because of their ignorance combined with fear based racism. What does anyone with an ounce of common sense think will be the result?

Posted by: gergle at January 8, 2011 10:01 PM
Comment #316539

IMO, I think we all need to wait for the facts to come out about this case before making any assumptions. Taking a line from a Steven Segal movie “Underseige, Dark Territory” ASSUMPTION IS THE MOTHER OF ALL F—-UPS.

Posted by: KAP at January 8, 2011 10:04 PM
Comment #316541

So, even though it’s legal expression, those who advocate violence should not feel guilty or bear the blame when someone unstable follows through? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 8, 2011 10:17 PM
Comment #316542

The people who advocate violence go to the white house now, and teach at universities.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2011 10:34 PM
Comment #316543

Willie, that was a dumb-ass comment…..and would be used by some to perpetuate more violence and insanity. Way to go…..

Posted by: jane doe at January 8, 2011 10:42 PM
Comment #316545

You’re right. I apologise for saying they go to the white house. They do teach at universities, though.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2011 11:03 PM
Comment #316546

Only someone with a little willie would say something to crass and insensitive!

Posted by: Jeff at January 8, 2011 11:04 PM
Comment #316550

Weary you seem to have the same thought process as the shooter, you should worry.

The shooter “The teachers are taking advantage of you in the first and Fifth Amendment. The United States Constitution, which is the law, can be broken at this school. Thank you and goodnight! Jared”

Weary “The people who advocate violence go to the white house now, and teach at universities.”

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2011 12:15 AM
Comment #316551

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” said the sheriff. “And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/sheriff-clarence-dupnik-a_n_806303.html

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2011 12:43 AM
Comment #316552
William Charles “Bill” Ayers (born December 26, 1944)[1] is an American elementary education theorist and a former leader in the movement that opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s activism as well as his current work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group[2] that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s, motivated by U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He is a retired professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, formerly holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.[3] During the 2008 Presidential campaign, a controversy arose over his contacts with candidate Barack Obama. He is married to Bernardine Dohrn, who was a leader in the Weather organization.


Now the truth is crass and insensitive?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 1:10 AM
Comment #316554

> a controversy arose over his contacts with candidate Barack Obama. He is married to Bernardine Dohrn, who was a leader in the Weather organization.
Now the truth is crass and insensitive?
Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 01:10 AM

It was a faux controversy, and it was belabored incessantly by a FAUX news organization.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 9, 2011 6:54 AM
Comment #316555

Just as Kent State in the 70’s broke the Innocence of a Generation, I do believe the actions yesterday broke the Innocence of this generation.

For why we will not accept our elected officials shooting our students niether can we or should we turn the other cheek to those who will provoke violence which leads to our citizens shooting our elected officials.

Because why we fight an enemy aboard over these Principles and Rights so should we fight the enemy within who give aid, promote, and worship such actions.

Since in America those who die for that cause will always be heros in my mind.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 9, 2011 8:13 AM
Comment #316557

Anyone who does not or cannot, for political reasons, listen to and watch this presentation by Keith Olbermann, has a very sad place in our society. And anyone who accuses the presentation of being too far left, really needs a psychiatric examination.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/keith-olbermann-arizona-shooting_n_806311.html

Posted by: Marysdude at January 9, 2011 9:50 AM
Comment #316561

Marysdude,
I knew you would trivialize the bombings by Bill Ayers.

Keith Olbermann is a nut.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 11:01 AM
Comment #316562

Weary Willie-
The Right only finds this episode uncomfortable, and does what it does to distance itself because members of it have gone too far out on that limb, and the mainstream of the party hasn’t had the nerve to call them on it.

They should find it now. They should recognize that whether or not this guy is a Tea Partier, the association that people jumped to is there thanks to rhetoric that often implied the use of violence to resolve political disputes that did not go their way.

One notable example are the crosshairs that Sarah Palin’s SARAHPAC website had superimposed over certain member’s districts, Gabrielle Gifford’s included. Now, I truly doubt that Palin wanted to kill her. She just wanted a strong image to excite the base with, to focus them. But her use of crosshairs, and others of provocative language about “second amendment” solutions to political problems is reckless, because when taken seriously, they contribute to an impression, however mistaken, that the leaders of the party advocate violence in the absence of their appeasement.

You cannot just say anything you would like to, like this, and not end up at least associating yourself with the nightmarish side of politics, and the fear that others may have that you and others like you are willing to take from them by force what the Framers and the constitution says should only be revoked by due process and the rule of law, if at all.

This murderous attack should be a wake up call to the right: there are limits, lines that shouldn’t be crossed in what you say, because some people don’t have enough brains or common sense to know that you’re just being melodramatic, or bluffing. Some people will take these incitements seriously, and will act out. And then you will have a terrible choice: escalate with the crazies, or shrink back from the brink, with everybody knowing that your rhetoric wrote checks your politics couldn’t cash.

I say, de-escalate now. Draw the line from choice. Acknowledge that however critical the subjects we discuss must be, it is equally critical that they must be discussed in peace, with nobody afraid for their life for making their opinion, popular or unpopular, known. Some may think they win if they force others to shut up, but as the last ten years has demonstrated, silencing opposition doesn’t mean you will be more correct or better liked, more credible, or more vindicated when all is said and done.

It also doesn’t mean that they’ll remain shut up, remain willing to accept the status quo. Has it not drawn folks notice on the right that the harder they’ve pushed the Democrats, the harder they’ve pushed back? Hit somebody hard enough, and eventually some will, to preserve their pride, hit back.

At some point, many people will want to stand up on their own two feet, and stand for what they believe their best interests are. Folks who think they have won now should realize that they may have merely inspired the other side to take up their cause with greater force and power than they otherwise would.

Folks should recognize that while some people become submissive in the face of force and power, others become defiant, fueling their resistance, fueling their sense of righteousness in their cause by the trials and tribulations imposed on them.

Nobody can build their utopia on the backs or bodies of others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 9, 2011 11:08 AM
Comment #316563

Willie, Willie, Willie…

I am not an apologist for Bill Ayers or any of the things Bill Ayers has done. I’m perfectly willing to accept that he no longer feels as strongly or as wrongly as he did in his youth, but that does not diminish the harm he caused or would have caused.

Now, was Bill Ayers a Democrat? Yes.

Did he hold a leadership position in the Democratic Party? No.

Did he do the things he did in the name of the Democratic Party? No.

Did he have a national audience for his rhetoric? No.

Did he influence more than a handful of others? No.

If Faux News had not brought his name into the political games, would most folks have even known who he was/is? No.

It might help matters if you would use a little balance in your own rhetoric.

My question to you right here right now…are you too much of a coward to follow that link? I’ll provide it again, just so you don’t have to go looking for it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/keith-olbermann-arizona-shooting_n_806311.html

Watch the video, and afterward I might listen to more of your vitriol with a more open mind. But, as long as you are unwilling to even go that far, why should what you say carry any weight here?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 9, 2011 11:32 AM
Comment #316564

Stephen Daugherty, why do you only include the “right” when you talk of needing to limit speech. The double standard of taking out of context what people on the “right” say in an effort to vilify them, and the blantant ignorance of the words and actions, such as Marysdude’s discounting of actual multiple bombings perpetrated by the “left”, is obvious. It’s a double standard that says “left” and “right” can agree as long as the “right” agrees with the “left”.

Sarah Palin put a crosshair on a map and she is being treated as if she actually pulled the trigger. Keith Olbermann has as much hatred as spittle flying from his mouth and he’s held up as a voice of reason. The hypocracy is an elephant in the room.


Nobody can build their utopia on the backs or bodies of others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 9, 2011 11:08 AM

Excellent advice, Stephen Daugherty. It’s a shame the political philosophy of the “left” contradicts you. You’re words are hollow.

Marysdude, Keith Olbermann was spewing more of his leftsided bashing of anyone he disagrees with. Because he vaguely refered to himself does not alter the fact he mentioned many by name that had nothing to do with this in an effort to cast blame on the “right” and all those who disagree with him. Don’t call me names because you assume I haven’t done something you believe I should. Your arrogance is astounding.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 11:50 AM
Comment #316566

Speaking of arrogance…but enough is enough. WW has dropped off my radar. I can no longer see his blip on my screen. He has no shame.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 9, 2011 12:30 PM
Comment #316567

This guy was a nut, like the guy who shot Ronald Reagan. He seems to have no affiliation with anybody else.

I have been watching the morning news and the pundits are reading way too much into this. Some idiot even said it was the Tea Party, which is more illogical than blaming all Muslims for the the acts of a few terrorists.

Think Hinkly or Squeaky Frome. This shooter was crazy for years. It is not a new development. The problem is that our system does not allow us to deal with problems like this proactively.

Stephen

Nobody “secretly thrills” at this kind of thing. If you are describing your own emotions, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you are trying to impute those emotions to others, you should also be ashamed of yourself. We have had many good discussion on this blog and I usually disagree with you, but I have always thought you an honorable man.

Please tell me that I have misinterpreted your intent in writing that paragraph and that you do not mean to imply that any significant group of Americans believes that this is a solution to anything.

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2011 12:33 PM
Comment #316568

There is a significant group of Americans who do not decry it as a solution to political differences.

It makes not a whit whether or not this shooting was done by a deranged man like Hinkley. It is the acceptance in the atmosphere and attitude of that group that makes it so difficult to fathom.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 9, 2011 1:09 PM
Comment #316569

C&J
The point you seem to be missing here is that it isn’t necessary to believe violence is a solution to anything…..only to talk tough and use enough references to guns and targets to push some impressionable, sick person into doing what he probably would not have, absent that language.

The language used by many tea party and far right wing folks has gone too far. Please don’t try to defend it, or try to turn it back on “our side”. It doesn’t make you look very good. Just sayin’.

Posted by: steve miller at January 9, 2011 1:17 PM
Comment #316570

What group?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 1:17 PM
Comment #316572

Steve

My did Hinkley shoot Ronald Reagan?

Don’t be silly about this.

Liberals give people a hard time for attributing terrorism to Muslims even when the killers shout their affinity. This guy has no connections except the ones you are creating for him. He was evidently nuts before there was a tea party.

Tell me this. When there was violence against Republican offices a couple years back, did you blame liberals? Was the liberal climate of hate behind the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan?

So I am “just saying” that if anybody tried to turn this on anybody’s side, they are pathetic and it doesn’t make them look very good.

I have been to tea party meeting. There is a lot less hatred expressed there than we find on this blog. A brief glance at Daily Kos will fill you with enough hate, if you have a need for it.

As I warned Stephen, nobody I know of “secretly thrilled” to this. If you did, it is all on you.

So let’s be clear. I don’t think this shooter was motivated by any legitimate political ideas, on the left or on the right.

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2011 1:37 PM
Comment #316573

Numerous GOP spokespersons in the past two days, have been desperately attempting to assert that it’s irresponsible for the media to be questioning­ the implication­ns of using the kind of hate strewn, inflammatory­ sentiments so typified by Palin’s map, and ads in newspapers calling on gun carrying to political assemblages, and using language that incites, yet become apoplectic when asked if it’s irresponsible for such tactics to be employed in the first place. Lamar Alexander would be an example.

The hypocrisy would be stunning if it weren’t already part and parcel of the kind of reprehensi­ble strategy the TeaPublicans have been relying on for the past two years. From a political strategy has sprung a corrupted belief in the very things they spout most vociferously against.

I’d call it political ‘spin’ if it were not so serious.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 9, 2011 1:52 PM
Comment #316574

I’m not defending his actions. He may have considered his actions as a solution. He was mistaken and for what ever reason he used to justify his actions to himself is obviously flawed.

However, his political ideas may or may not be legitimate. Let’s wait to see what his motives were. His solution is unacceptable, and the way to avoid a repeat is to identify the problem, not attributing one person’s misguided solution to others.


I don’t think this shooter was motivated by any legitimate political ideas, on the left or on the right.

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2011 01:37 PM

One of his political ideas was a sound currency. I will not consider the idea of a sound currency, as defined in the Constitution as being backed by gold or silver, as illegitimate because a lunatic who committed murder also thought so. Many people believe our currency should be constitutional, ie. backed by gold or silver. I dare any of you to mention those who believe in sound money backed by gold or silver by name in association with this crime the way you have recklessly and irresponsibly thrown around names of those in the media who you disagree with.

Many here are saying, “See what happens when you say things we disagree with!”

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 1:59 PM
Comment #316575
Kevin L. Lagola wrote: And even if the US were to single-handedly impose the strictest gun laws in the world, people who are criminal in nature and/or mentally disturbed will find a way to get firearms.
That’s right. Ask nations (e.g. Australia) which already learned that.
Kevin L. Lagola wrote: Much fear mongering has gone on about the harm being done to our beloved country by those ungrateful, treasonous ‘liberals’. It is spouted in hateful ways over the radio waves (Limbaugh), television (Beck, et al), and from the campaign trails (the event list I included above). Many of the national figures on the right have not only sat on their hands while these things have occurred, but have given tacit approval as well.
Really?

I’m not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or any other talking heads in the Main Stream Media or radio.
But:

  • (1) when (if ever) did any of these people advocate or encourage the murder and/or violence against anyone?
  • (2) Even if someone in the media were to advocate or encourage violence, does that justify it, or make others responsible for the violent acts of others? Do people have to listen, much less act on hate speech by others?
  • (3) By blaming some “national figures on the right”, isn’t that doing the very same thing you are simultaneously deploring, by trying to fix some blame to others who had nothing do with the crimes?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people a lot easier. If we don’t recognize that simple, sensible fact, then we will never regulate guns in any intelligent way.
That’s right. Pencilz don’t misppel wordz, spoons don’t make people fat, guns don’t kill people. People do those things.

And similarly, hate speech and rhetoric, does not justify, nor cause hate murders. People do those things.

Some people are quite simply mentally unstable already, to begin with, and they’ll will most likely find and use any excuse they can to justify their actions in their own mind.
Also, quite often, there’s already a history of mental instability (including some violent behavior, threats, writings, etc.) by some people, before they commit such mass murders.
However, it is diffucult to imprison or secure such people in secure mental hospitals and facilities when they have not yet committed a crime, which would violate many rights and laws.

Perhaps, what the focus should be, if at all possible, is how to better detect potentially dangerous people (especially if they already have a history of mental instability and violence), and intervene in some justifiable way that does not violate their rights.

But, that’s not easy to do, and most likely, will never be a perfect solution.

But violating all others’ rights is also not a solution, and unfortunately, some people will try to use this incident to violate the 2nd Amendment, and possibly other rights.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2011 2:00 PM
Comment #316576


** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 2:15 PM
Comment #316577

Andy Stern: “If we can’t use the power of persuasion we will use the persuasion of power”.

How American is that?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 2:19 PM
Comment #316578

Andy Stern did go to the White House! Many times!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 2:20 PM
Comment #316579

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
Memo to Paul Krugman and Rep. Van Hollen: My Search Was Not in Vain (Updated)
John on March 31, 2010 at 8:37 am

In last Thursday’s column, Paul Krugman admitted to having fun watching “right-wingers go wild.” One of the things that apparently delighted him was this map which Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page:



The map appears on this page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years).

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #316580

C&J
Nice try on the mis-direct, but no dice. When Republican offices were damaged, were numerous high profile Democrats talking in the kind of hyperbolic, militaristic terms the right wingers are now? Nope.

Likewise with Reagan. I don’t recall Democrats using language that might have encouraged violence prior to the attempt on his life. Both of your examples seem to be red herring-like.


Your strident arguing does not suggest repudiation of the extreme language thrown around by some very high profile tea party and elected (or ex) Public Officials.

It shouldn’t be a question of right or left, but rather, one of right or wrong. You either believe it’s ok to use language which may be suggestive of (or tend to incite) violence…..or, you do not.

I think it would be reasonable for both sides to agree that using violent/militaristic phraseology like “target”,”take out”, or (my favorite) “make him scared to go out of his house” should not be used when spoken publicly by, and referring to, public or elected officials. Just sayin’ ;)

Posted by: steve miller at January 9, 2011 2:47 PM
Comment #316581

steve miller,

Perhaps you missed this one…

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/007373.html#316576

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 2:59 PM
Comment #316583

Lets just all tone down the rhetoric, remove the violence stated or implied. Respect each other even when we disagree. Vitriol doesn’t solve anything, nor does it persuade. Even Keith Olbermann, whom some of you won’t even listen to, accuses both sides of playing this dangerous game. He even admits to having done it himself.

How Christian is it to imply or suggest violence? No matter the cause, whether it be abortion or healthcare or any other cause, political or otherwise.

Enough is enough. Keep your guns, just keep some sense along with them.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 9, 2011 3:13 PM
Comment #316585

I will respect each other when we all spell our Moniker correctly.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 3:20 PM
Comment #316587

Marydude

I refuse to believe that the hate speech on the left provoked the violence. You can spin it as you wish.

The reprehensible strategy of some on the left to demonize expression of speech that differs from theirs will come to no good.

Steve

Weary Willie quoted Obama above. I didn’t believe Obama actually said those things, but a spot check indicated that he did.

Nice try at diversion.

All

I am insulted by the implication that this crazy shooter was associated with any legitimate political movement. Maybe the left (guys like William Ayers etc) believes that violence is just politics by other means, but neither I, nor others I know, think this is true.

We didn’t accept friends like Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers when we were in college. We did not read Saul Alinsky nor did we wear T-shirts with mass murderers like Che Guevara.

Who said this? “I love this goddamn country, and we’re going to take it back.” Hint it wasn’t a tea party guy. It was somebody who lefties admire and even study.

If you did any of these things, maybe you should remember that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #316589

And how about this from the left (jornolist)

What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.

He adds that he was speaking “rhetorically”, nice.

The left is very good at vitriolic phrases.

Again, anybody who ever wore a Che Guevara T-shirt should keep quiet about provocation, BTW.

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2011 3:34 PM
Comment #316591

C&J, did you ever realize the “left” projects itself in a way that discounts any opposition?

Washington, D.C. is guilty of projecting itself this way.

To debate Washington, D.C. is to contradict a way of life.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 4:38 PM
Comment #316592

C&J,
At least one difference between us is that I find this:
“What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.”
Offensive and disgusting, and I’m willing to condemn it……on either side. You (judging by your defensive maneuvering) do not.

Several of us on the left have chimed in, condemning speech that seemingly encourages violence and violent behavior. Will you join us?

You’re barking up the wrong tree on the Che Guevara thing as well. But I did wear a “Coast Guard” T-shirt, when I enlisted at age seventeen, where I shot “expert”. And I got a nice Army T-shirt, where I also qualified “expert”.

I still own guns and like to shoot the odd defenseless small animal or two, but I have trouble getting behind the kind of speech you seem to be defending. Just sayin’ :)

Posted by: steve miller at January 9, 2011 4:42 PM
Comment #316593

Of course anything out of context sounds more ominous than what was said, and leave it to Weary to take it out of context.

“Barack Obama’s call for ‘new politics’ is officially over. In just 24 hours, Barack Obama attacked one of America’s pioneering women CEOs, rejected a series of joint bipartisan town halls, and said that if there’s a political knife fight, he’d bring a gun,” McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said,”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2011 4:43 PM
Comment #316594

I haven’t been around here for awhile. Thought I would drop in and study the thoughts of some people who’s opinions I generally respect. Personally I think most of you are missing the mark. You are allowing the very actions you rail against to overtake your emotions. There is no doubt our political atmosphere is probably as hatefully charged as it has ever been. As I see it that charge emanates from several different ideological persuasions. Any ideology that relies on building hatred of an alternate ideology to garner political favor is not to be admired or respected. Unfortunately for all of us, the latter seems to dominate the political spectrum nowadays. None of us at this point know the motivations of the shooter. Nor do we know if he had a gripe with any particular ideology. What we do know is that his actions have given rise to a conversation that needs to be had. That would be, just where do we draw the line with regard to to the cause and effect of political accusation and innuendo. What responsibility do our politicians and media have in keeping the rhetoric at a sensible and moral level in order to not encourage those who might live on the edge of extreme action. IMO there is no doubt our country has entered an era of heightened hatred and suspicion of govt and each other. Is all the fear building and partisan accusation really worth the effort when the end result is a divided nation that seems to value the fight more than real world results?

Posted by: Rickil at January 9, 2011 4:45 PM
Comment #316595

“Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.” “

Once again taken out of context,Weary.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xff2j8_obamas-on-gop-to-latinos-punish-your-enemies_news

The one thing in this world you can be sure of is this- If it comes from the right wing it is misinformation, half truths or outright lies. They are if nothing else consistent.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2011 4:49 PM
Comment #316596

For those on the right here is a statement from you leader in the House,

“The man who could be the next House Speaker declared Wednesday he would kill”

Wow Weary this is fun, of course it is wrong but taking words out of context is fun. Doesn’t Boehner sound as if he is ready to murder someone?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2011 5:02 PM
Comment #316598


Seems marching orders have been issued for tea baggers:

“The Atlantic reports that Tea Party Nation, led by Judson Phillips, is joining in the criticism: “TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail ‘The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left’s attack on the Tea Party movement,’ described the shooter as ‘a leftist lunatic’ and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a ‘leftist sheriff’ who ‘was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack.’ Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement’s recent electoral gains.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/clarence-dupnik-arizona-sheriff_n_806440.html

It is time to question your movement leaders righties.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2011 5:32 PM
Comment #316599

C&J-
It’s one thing to use a figure of speech, especially one that has entered popular culture through its use in The Untouchables. (The Chicago Way, Remember?)

Yes, Obama has said things like “Let’s beat them.”, and “I’m spoiling for a fight”, and “I’m looking for whose ass to kick.”

But he was never suggesting, nor even really talking about actual violence in those cases. There was never going to be video of Obama chasing after oil executive to give them kicks to the rear.

And that is very much different from actually saying to people that if they don’t get what they want politically by peaceful means, if they remain in the minority, that they should turn to their guns as a means of redressing those grievances. Talking about secession as a serious option, talking about taking to the hills is not anywhere near the same thing.

I really find this BS the most disturbing, in part because people don’t necessarily realize what they’re rationalizing by trying to draw such false equivalences. Ayers and the rest, by the time they met Obama were basically latte-sipping, potbellied office-workers who had long ago left their violent pasts behind. There is no real evidence that Obama has ever condoned political violence as a means of furthering the left’s agenda. He does not talk about second amendment solutions to problems. He has talked far more kindly about Republicans, with much more conciliatory language than he has ever gotten in return, so its ironic that you try to portray him and the Tea Party members as anything near similar.

Your lesson from all this should be that playing with fire, rhetorically, gets you burned. Instead, you seem to be trying to teach the lesson that everybody’s doing it, everybody’s using such language, inciting people to violence, when the truth is, Democrats have consistently rejected such suggestions, and insisted that their members avail themselves of legal means of protest and reform. Republicans have tried to sweep it under the rug, rather than go through the trouble of confronting a key constituency over their hostility issues.

Is it really so hard to say the political equivalent of “I reject Satan and all his works?” Don’t waste your time trying to justify things by saying everybody’s doing it by trying to drag Democrats off their moral high ground. Don’t complicate it in such a way that you give aid and comfort to those who reject peaceful solutions to political problems, justifying their sense that they’re only responding in kind.

Reject political violence. Reject the statements of those who called for Second Amendment remedies, reject their impulses. It’s not hard for me to reject what William Ayers did three or four decades ago, to say he was wrong, to say those who supported such political violence were wrong, and that voicing an opinion in favor of such violent methods of political satisfaction is wrong. I can say that because that is my default assumption. The Framers indulged in all the political violence that was necessary to make us a free nation. The fist and the bludgeon and the gun and the knife have no place in our political forum.

Full stop, end of story, no ambiguity. One end or another, I condemn it. I know some of your red column folks will try to twist that into something, but that really is my sentiment. I believe in our Democracy implicitly. Persuasion, not force, is what America’s leaders should set opinions by, and no leader should be advocating political violence or the disruption of America’s law and order.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 9, 2011 5:58 PM
Comment #316600
C&J- It’s one thing to use a figure of speech, especially one that has entered popular culture through its use in The Untouchables. (The Chicago Way, Remember?)

You are so young, Stephen Daugherty!

You stake your reputation on movies?

you asasinate ideas with revisionist history.

Take off the glasses, Stephen Daugherty.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 6:32 PM
Comment #316601

The shooter claimed to be a Marxist. That is a far cry from what I have been reading above with all those guessing what part of the right he is on. He also has had some mental issues.

Why would someone on the right want to shoot opposition member? We just won a big election!! The right side of the column does not do things that way. There are people who assign things to these thugs who committ these public crimes and what they assign to them always without exception has a connection with 2nd amendment, Christian, Tea Party, etc. That is sick commentary. It lacks factual content. Guessing can cause you more headaches that betting on wheel in Vegas. Guessing is just letting your thinking process run wild. I witnessed that above and I certainly was not guessing. SMEAR. Socialist Marxist Endless And Radical.

Politically I do not agree with the Congresswoman. And I certainly do not believe shooting her is the way to remove her from office.

Posted by: tom humes at January 9, 2011 6:50 PM
Comment #316602

I said, a long time ago, annex these states on the border that are giving us trouble.

What say you, Stephen Daugherty?

Add the stars of the northern states of Mexico to our flag. Give these northern states of Mexico this choice:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all
Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 7:09 PM
Comment #316603

It sounds like one person was listening to Sharon Angle when she stated that resorting to Second Amendment solutions may be necessary.
One nut job political wannabe made an assenine comment and one nut job heard it and followed the suggestion. ((( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/sharron-angle-addresses-s_n_709518.html )))
jack, willy….quit trying to justify it!! Six people are dead, including one child!!! The victims were innocent and not deserving of their fate. One idiotic comment from one idiot and look at the outcome.
Glad to see some of you are so proud as to feel the need to defend your whack-jobs!

Nice to see you again, Rick !

Posted by: jane doe at January 9, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #316604

There are consequences and ramifications:

1. Hateful rhetoric
Some idiot somewhere will take it seriously

2. Lying to win
The truth will out. Eventually the lies have to be paid for by someone

3. Thinking that nonthinking is a positive thing
Lockstep and incessant filibuster limit discourse and stymie progress

4. Turning citizens against the government that is them
Sometime or other you will be in charge and have to turn around and convince them you were wrong

5. Turning citizens against the concept of taxation
Sooner or later, when you are in charge and need funds to operate, you will need more than eloquence to re-convince them they need to pay taxes

Congress, the airwaves and the Internet are teeming with vitriol and hate and suggestions to violence. People are encouraged to go armed. To go armed means you either expect violence or are intending violence, else there is no need for arms.

Justify and act as apologists if you must, but none of that will mean anything in the end, except an escalation of violence.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 9, 2011 8:21 PM
Comment #316606

d.a.n. attributed something to me that is not my writing:

“Kevin L. Lagola wrote: Much fear mongering has gone on about the harm being done to our beloved country by those ungrateful, treasonous ‘liberals’. It is spouted in hateful ways over the radio waves (Limbaugh), television (Beck, et al), and from the campaign trails (the event list I included above). Many of the national figures on the right have not only sat on their hands while these things have occurred, but have given tacit approval as well.”

This is not my style of writing. Moreover, as a trained AP-Style editor, I would not of made some of the mechanical errors therein.

Dan, where did you get this from?

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 9, 2011 8:32 PM
Comment #316608

Palin on Facebook:
“In the battle, set your sights on next season’s targets! From the shot across the bow – the first second’s tip-off – your leaders will be in the enemy’s crosshairs, so you must execute strong defensive tactics. You won’t win only playing defense, so get on offense! The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons – your Big Guns – to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win.”

Palin on Twitter:
“Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T’aint bad)”

Palin, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly should all do jail time for inciting violence. The over the top rhetoric directed toward their dim-witted and unstable followers has been killing far too many people.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 9, 2011 8:46 PM
Comment #316609

Kevin, I apologize.

CORRECTION:
It was Marysdude (not Kevin Lagola) that wrote:

Much fear mongering has gone on about the harm being done to our beloved country by those ungrateful, treasonous ‘liberals’. It is spouted in hateful ways over the radio waves (Limbaugh), television (Beck, et al), and from the campaign trails (the event list I included above). Many of the national figures on the right have not only sat on their hands while these things have occurred, but have given tacit approval as well.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2011 8:49 PM
Comment #316610

The “crazy shooter” is going to have a trial. They are looking for a lawyer from outside Arizona who would be unacquainted with Judge Roll. A good defense lawyer might want to call Jesse Kelly and even Sarah Palin, as advocates for shooting, and putting their opponents in the crosshairs.

Christina Taylor Green, the 9 year old girl who was murdered, was born on 9/11/2001. She was a “Face of Hope” in a book about children born on that date.

Posted by: Jack at January 9, 2011 8:56 PM
Comment #316611
Palin, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly should all do jail time for inciting violence. The over the top rhetoric directed toward their dim-witted and unstable followers has been killing far too many people.

Seriously?

That sort of rhetoric sounds very much like the rhetoric you deplore?

If we put everyone in jail who spouts nonsense, almost everyone will be in jail.

People don’t have to act out based on any other person’s rhetoric. Mentally unstable people will find reasons to justify their actions, no matter what others say.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2011 9:01 PM
Comment #316612

What is wrong with this country? Why isn’t the discussion about gun control? What on earth are we doing, allowing maniacs to own Glocks?

A nine-year old girl is dead. A 76 year old man died taking a bullet by throwing himself in front of his wife. A Congresswoman was shot, and the weapon was so powerful, the bullet went through her brain and exited. One nut fired 31 rounds in a very short time, killing at least six innocent human beings and wounding more than a dozen other humans.

Do some Americans interpret the 2nd amendment as giving a right to citizens to own Glocks? Then why don’t we change the law, now, immediately! What is wrong with this country?

Posted by: phx8 at January 9, 2011 9:13 PM
Comment #316614

Guns are “sporting goods”. This guy bought his Glock in November for election season.

Posted by: Jack at January 9, 2011 9:24 PM
Comment #316615

It wasn’t the gun that killed those people, it was the man.

A strict adhearance to the 2nd amendment would have minimised this tragity. People, Citizens, trained to use a weapon equal to the one used in this incident could have prevented the loss of life experienced on this day.


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 9:37 PM
Comment #316616

Sure looks like a whole lot of mental illness above. Blaming people for something they did not do.

The young man made a choice. He will pay the price for it. He has been charged with murder. Nobody told him to do it. Marxists do not care about left/right politics. Left politics will kill their own to get the changes they desire. It is more beneficial to kill one of their own. Just SOP on the left.

All this crap about how he was inspired by the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, etc. is just illogical remarks, not even thinking.

Lastly, there has been an extremely small of compassion for the Congresswoman. The most disappointing thing for me is that I was not there to take the shooter out.

Posted by: tom humes at January 9, 2011 9:38 PM
Comment #316617

Pencilz don’t misppel wordz, spoons don’t make people fat, and guns don’t kill people.
Some people do those things.

And similarly, hate speech and rhetoric by some people does not justify, nor cause hate murders. People do those things, and some people are quite simply mentally unstable already, to begin with, and they’ll will most likely find and use any excuse they can to justify their actions in their own mind.

But violating all others’ rights is also not a solution, and unfortunately, some people will try to use this incident to violate the 2nd Amendment, and possibly other rights.

So, should we also make automobiles illegal?
After all, there were 42,636 people killed in automobile accidents in year 2005, and aout 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States (one death every 13 minutes).

Compare that 42,636 killed in automobiles with the 15,241 murdered in year 2009. It appears automobiles are three times more deadly than all murders in year 2009.

Three or more people are killed every day in the U.S. by illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are already illegal, but being illegal doesn’t stop those daily murders per day, does it? And making firearms illegal won’t stop criminals from getting firearms either.

And what fraction of those murders were by firearms, knives, bludgeoning by baseball bat, automobile, arson, or some other method?
Heck, one can of gasoline could do a lot of damage, and kill a lot of people.
So, should gasoline be banned?
One automobile or truck could do a lot damage, and kill a lot of people.
So, should automobiles and trucks be banned?
One railroad tie removed from a track could do a lot of damage, and kill a lot of people.
So, should railroads be banned?
In Australia, after guns were banned, 31% of attempted murders were by knives.
So, should knives be banned too?
Someone flying an airliner or airplane into a building can kill a lot of people.
So, shoudl we ban tall airplanes and/or buildings?

It is somewhat over-simplistic to think over-turning the 2nd Amendment will stop these terrible incidents, since there are many ways to kill lots of people.

Citizens have a right to protect themselves, per the 2nd Amendment.

If more people carried weapons, Jared Lee Loughner may have been stopped sooner.

If people want the 2nd Amendment overturned, perhaps they should get 34 states to file Article V applications to do just that. However, ALL 50 states have already filed over 400 Article V amendment applications, and Congress has ignored them.
Good luck with that, since Congress refuses to obey Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
And good luck trying to confiscate Americans’ weapons.

Laws exist already that prohibit felons from legally buying and owning weapons.
Therefore, making weapons illegal for everyone will simply allow only the criminals to have weapons, and law abiding citizens will be left more vunlerable.

Again, pencilz don’t misppel wordz, spoons don’t make people fat, and guns don’t kill people.
Some people do those things.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2011 10:10 PM
Comment #316618

People in Arizona already have the right to carry concealed weapons. The shooter who doesn’t deserve a name, much less three names, was apparently the only one there representing his 2nd amendment rights, to be a part of a well regulated militia, being necessary for the defense of a free people.

Posted by: Jack at January 9, 2011 10:15 PM
Comment #316619

Steve Miller

I have always condemned all these sorts of violence. The difference between us is that people on the left seem to think that hate is okay if it is aimed at the right.

Good you didn’t have a Che T-shirt. And glad that you agree that anybody who wore one was indeed ignorant.

j2t2

As for the shooter - he had on his webpage a tape of a flag burning. Who is it the generally supports this sort of thing.

The bottom line is that this guy is a nut who loved both Marx and others. He is not a leftist because of his flag burning and Marx admiring, but he is also not a right winger.

Nobody has defended this guy. Tea parties have been amazingly free of violence. The only violence at tea party rallies has been from union thugs and provocateurs. The leftist attempt to demonize them is unacceptable.

This is a terrible crime perpetrated by an unaffiliated nut case.

I am not feeling “defensive” about this except that I know that idiots on the left are trying to make it a right issue and I know there are enough other leftist idiots that will believe it. So my position is like any victim of propaganda. I know that what is said is a lie, but I fear that people less informed or intelligent than I am will believe it.

This is another excuse for hateful and bigoted left wing nonsense. It is designed to stigmatize anybody who disagrees with them as violent. The left is using the old argument that all members of a group are implicated if one person does it. The problem here is that the shooter is at least as much a leftist nut as a rightist one.

I condemn all who want to use or advocate violence in the service of politics. This includes many leftists. Again, all those pinheads with Che T-shirts and posters fall in this group. Also those liberals on Journolist. And all those who call for anybody to “punish their enemies.”

I ask all my leftist and liberal colleagues to join me in this quest both against violence in politics but also against the hatred and bigotry that tries to stigmatize whole groups based on the actions of some nuts, especially when those nuts are not even associated.

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2011 10:17 PM
Comment #316620

BTW - if you still have any Che posters of T-shirts, throw them in the garbage and remember that many sixties radicals really were bad guys.

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2011 10:19 PM
Comment #316623

tom humes, your last comment is about as lame as you can get!
You don’t think that the rallies held prior to elections could have been considered incitement by some of these gun carrying goons? Provocation by Palin, et al not encouraging or provoking? Mental instability needs little encouragement to go off on a tangent, and this man clearly knew who he wanted to “take out”. And as far as I’m concerned, any and all who helped fan the flames should be held just as accountable as he is for pulling the trigger!

Posted by: jane doe at January 9, 2011 10:22 PM
Comment #316624

To all, No matter how much gun control there is in this country any nut case or criminal if he wants a gun badly enough he will find a way to get it. There is no sence in putting blame on anyone but the gunman he was 22 years old and capable of knowing right from wrong. To much nonsencical spin going on here about this shooting. Instead we all should show some compassion towards the families of those that lost loved ones and the wounded.

Posted by: KAP at January 9, 2011 10:24 PM
Comment #316625

tom humes, there is not a lot of compassion for the soldier in the field these days either.

I personally think they should come home. Maybe Beynor would be more comfortable if he had 150,000 more troops protecting him and his peers in D.C. or another 150,000 troops on the border of this lawless wilderness called the Mexican border.

Would another 150,000 troops secure the Mexican border states and allow them to petition for entry into the U.S. of America?

Let’s bring home 150,000 troops and revisit Manifest Destiny.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 10:27 PM
Comment #316626

jane doe, you don’t know jack about what motivated this guy. Quit blowing smoke up our behinds.

If you want to see people fanning flames read your own posts.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 10:31 PM
Comment #316627

Somebody is fixated on the sixties…half century ago…seems like only yesterday we were fighting an unnecessary and unjust war, tromping on citizen’s rights and smoking pot…ah, them was the good old days. Different now…er…how? We just wrapped up another unjust and unnecessary war, citizen’s rights are being trampled on and there is more pot in more hands than ever before. The sixties had folks rebelling against injustice and unjust wars. Some went overboard. Now folks are rebelling against regulating the banking industry, paying a fair share and taxing dead people who don’t get taxed…go figure…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 9, 2011 10:32 PM
Comment #316628

Amen WW to post #316626.

Posted by: KAP at January 9, 2011 10:36 PM
Comment #316629

Let’s look at the profile of the shooter (which I have excepted from AP). He looks like a standard nut. For example, he is at “truther” who thinks the government was behind 9/11. Who else thinks things like that? He was a regular smoker of marijuana. He is an ardent atheist. He was rejected by the military.

You can draw some of your own conclusions, but the profile does not fit an American conservative. I think all “truthers” are pinheads; atheists are delusional; regular pot smokers are losers as are people rejected by the military. Does anybody here disagree with me?

Other details:

-The crew smoked marijuana everyday.
-He believed the government was behind 9/11.
-On his YouTube page, he listed among his favorite books “Animal Farm” and “Brave New World” — two novels about how authorities control the masses. Other books he listed in the wide-ranging list included “Mein Kampf,” “The Communist Manifesto,” “Peter Pan” and Aesop’s Fables.
-Loughner, an ardent atheist, began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the monotony of modern life.
-He told anyone who would listen that the world we see does not exist, that words have no meaning — and that the only way to derive meaning was during sleep.
-Several people who knew Loughner at community college said he did not seem especially political, but was socially awkward.
-He appeared to be to me an emotional cripple or an emotional child. He lacked compassion, he lacked understanding and he lacked an ability to connect.
-He made bizarre claims — such as that the Mars rover and the space shuttle missions were faked.
-He attempted to enlist in the Army but was rejected for service. In accordance with the Privacy Act, they will not discuss why he was rejected.

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2011 10:38 PM
Comment #316630

jane doe, you just fanned someones flame…(;~))

Posted by: Marysdude at January 9, 2011 10:38 PM
Comment #316631

Marysdude

Yes, it was a long time ago. You say, “some went overboard” Of course we all condemn them and those who “go overboard” today, whether they are on the left or on the right.

Re Che - I take it a little personally, since when I was really young and stupid I almost admired him. People around me praised “the revolution” and at first I didn’t know any better. I just learned to dislike the murderous little pervert when I actually read about him and now every time I see that poster, which is still sold in reputable stores it reminds me of my own stupidity and the continuing stupidity and cravenness of those who should know better after all these years.

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2011 10:43 PM
Comment #316632

Those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 10:58 PM
Comment #316633

That post was edited, KAP. No matter. At least someone is paying attention. You and someone who doesn’t like profanity.
..and Marysdude, who said was done with me. I never believed what Marysdude said either.


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 11:04 PM
Comment #316634

Just a reminder: Ubiquitous use of profanity is not welcomed here. The occasional swear word, when used in appropriate context, is typically acceptable.

From the Rules of Participation:

Profanity is discouraged. Gratuitous use of profanity on a repeated basis is not allowed.
Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at January 9, 2011 11:14 PM
Comment #316635

This was a political assassination of a specific target turned into a mass murder. The congresswoman had met the shooter before. He was unsatisfied with her answer to a question at a previous meeting. He lives in the district and would be aware of all the rhetoric surrounding the election. He bought the gun on November 30, after the election.

Posted by: Jack at January 9, 2011 11:15 PM
Comment #316636

You may be correct, Jack. But you also may be wrong. The media is focusing on the congresswoman. Others were killed. You do not know if the Congresswoman was the target. I don’t trust the media. You should not either. Take a wait and see attitude. Remember the poor guy they found in the garbage can a week ago?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2011 11:27 PM
Comment #316637

C&J, Not sure what to say, are you sure you were talking to me as I have not accused the shooter of being anything. I have just pointed out the foolishness of Weary’s comments about Obama and the county Sheriff’s assessment of the state of Arizona.

I have not seen anything to lead me to believe that this shooter had a political leaning. He seems to be mentally unbalanced based upon the information available to date. That does not automatically make him a conservative despite the head dude at the tea party’s fierce response to the issue.

I have been following this shooting on Huffpo and haven’t seen the “attacks” by those on the left, in fact I have seen Olbermann calling for a return to decent rhetoric by all talking heads. In fact the only hateful and bigoted comments I have seen has been by the teas party leader as shown in my previous comment. So I think some on the right may be feeling a bit sheepish and a little sensitive to criticism, IMHO.

To think that one has to be a conservative to listen to the addle brained talk radio shows of Savage, Limbaugh and the rest is a bit of a leap in logic as those with mental health issues can be non political and still listen to hate spewing DJ’s. I don’t think that there were specific instructions issued by these hate spewing talk radio types but I think they have went overboard in their use of exaggeration and hyperbole to keep their audience listening. This misinformation could well have triggered the tragedy we have seen unfold this weekend.

Of course the protection of free speech rights for these hate baiters like Limbaugh and Savage is more important than seeking revenge for their rhetoric but I would like to see them heed the call for a return to sanity as you never know who’s the next target for some one suffering a mental illness.

I think the answer going forward is to have training for those in Congress and their staff in the use of firearms and to issue concealed carry permits and weapons, as part of the job, to the staff and Congressperson as well as Federal Judges. An ability to return fire would could have been the difference in this tragedy for some of the victims. A small security force for certain events would also help to keep the mentally ill and extremist at bay. Lord knows there are to many weapons out there to think that gun control is the answer at this point.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2011 11:53 PM
Comment #316638
C&J wrote:I think all … atheists are delusional; … Does anybody here disagree with me?
Yes.

Just because others don’t share your religious beliefs does not mean they are delusional.

Such blatant intolerance speaks volumes.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2011 11:57 PM
Comment #316639

A rational read on why some on the left feel like the conservative talking heads share some responsibility for this tragedy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/post_1537_b_806383.html

Posted by: j2t2 at January 10, 2011 12:06 AM
Comment #316640

jane doe

I will try to take out anybody that tries to use force to disrupt proceeding in public. I have done it before and I will never stop doing it.

At a tea party rally in my area a man tried to take a mike and interupt the proceedings. I was 3 feet away from him and when he became more disruptive and the proceedings were paused while he was doing his thing, I and a helper took the guy down until we could locate someone to make the arrest. No big deal. He was combatitive, and not responding to the authority in charge. The program continued when we brought the guy down. We did not know if the guy was carrying or not. It was not shown, so there was no threat of violence, only the disruptive behavior that he displayed and wanted to control a portion of the program. He did not succeed in his agenda.

Posted by: tom humes at January 10, 2011 12:10 AM
Comment #316641

Excellent, j2t2! You have just acknowledged our second amendment right to bear arms!

Oh! Wait! Do you mean only Congress and their staff, and federal judges should have the right to bear arms? and..
Who pays for this small security force for certain events, j2t2?

I’m glad you finally see the point of having this second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but.. It’s for all of us, not just federal officials and their staff.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2011 12:16 AM
Comment #316642

Weary Willie-
Do I stake my reputation on the movies?

No. I don’t, not in the way you’re implying. But Its more or less what I’m professionally trained to do, so I’ve seen a lot of movies. I know what the actual Odessa Steps sequences is that Brian DePalma referenced in the Train Station shootout.

But I would build my reputation of somebody who is fairly aware of popular culture on it. When Obama refers to movies or to ideas that are fairly popular, I think I can speak of what it means with some authority on that basis.

Obama’s own words referred to a political knife-fight. He explicitly made it metaphorical, a way of indicating that he would take extra firepower, so to speak, to the debate. He wasn’t going to pull a gun out and shoot McCain, any more than McCain was going to be waving around a big bowie blade threatening to cut Obama.

As far as annexing those states? I think we have our sea to shining sea manifest destiny taken care of. We already fought one war for the sake of much of the territory in the Southwest. The last thing we need to be doing is an military invasion of a country which has not invaded us.

And no, don’t give me that crap about drug-runners or illegal aliens. Those do not constitute soldiers or agents of the Mexican government.

Don’t throw the pledge of allegiance at me as if that’s supposed to be something I should rear back in shame over. You should understand by now that I believe in this country, in its freedoms, in its greatness. You can at least admit that this is what I think, even if you believe that my way of expressing it is wrong or evil.

As for guns not killing people? You want to drop a loaded pistol and find out? A gun is a device for killing people and animals. It is engineered and refined for that purpose. Why is that not honestly dealt with here?

Now, I don’t want to confiscate everybody’s guns. But even the most absolute rights of the constitution have their limit. As a person who actually took a course focused mainly on telecommunications law, I can tell you that there are exceptions to the protection of free speech written into the law. There’s a reason there’s a disclaimer on nearly every movie saying something like “Any resemblance of characters in this and actual people is entirely coincidental.” There’s a reason why you can’t play a rock concert nude in the middle of the street at three o’clock in the morning, although that’s certainly expressing yourself. Defaming somebody in print or in voice without truth as a defense can end up getting you sued.

If the First Amendment can have these exceptions be made, affecting the time, place and manner of expression, if talking about committing a crime can land you in jail, why are we forced to so absolutely interpret the second amendment? Does a right to bear arms mean that we let folks whose inability to judge right from wrong make their ownership of a gun a hazard to public safety? Does it justify the sale of weapons optimized for the purpose of offense?

And really, if our remedy to some people pulling guns is to pull even more guns, are we just raising the body count and the amount of lead flying, instead of writing our laws to minimize the chances of these kinds of dangerous incidents. How many fewer people would have been killed, had he not had access to an extended magazine, as reported?

And really, isn’t Arizona an open carry state? Didn’t this man fire first, taking his first shot at the Congresswoman? A strict adherence to the second Amendment will never eliminate violence, anymore than a strict adherence to the use of condoms will prevent sex.

The simple truth here is that a man who shouldn’t have had a gun, who didn’t have the judgment necessary to use it in a law abiding way, got access to one, and with an extended clip to boot. Any law that could have made this more difficult might have made this hideous outcome more unlikely. Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people a lot easier than without them.

tom humes-
You got documentation on that Marxist thing? He did read Karl Marx. He also read Orwell’s dystopian novels, which were rather critical of socialism, and Mein Kampf, a work by an ardent opponent of communism.

As far as motive goes, just listen for a moment to what the people on the right have actually been saying. They talk of our policies as more than just wrong, but as an existential threat to America, to the constitution, to the economy, to the freedom of every citizen in this country.

I mean, I recounted an actual commercial by an actual Republican, who had George Washington saying in response to all the grievances the candidate laid out, “Gather your armies.” He also compared taxation to Slavery. That time it was Honest Abe, who in real life levied an income tax to pay for a war meant to prevent secession, rather than threatening it himself, like the Current governor of the second biggest state in the country did during his campaign.

You can make your cute little acronyms, buster, but your people are causing harm to their own reputations all by themselves. through the things they actually say. People can buy that he is a Tea Partier (whether or not that’s true) because of what the Tea Partiers themselves have said, have threatened. When you got a bunch of people brandishing guns, acting like a second American revolution may be necessary, stocking the bunkers and cleaning the stores out on ammunition on the notion that the jackbooted thugs might be right around the corner, people can be forgiven for thinking that the person who walks up and employs a “second amendment remedy” (the Actual words from Sharron Angle, who was your rival for the seat of our Majority leader) on a sitting Democratic member of the house of Representatives might have come from among them.

The tea partiers didn’t need Marxist smear merchants to end up under suspicion, they put themselves in the path of that particular problem long ago by not exercising good judgment or prudence, or truly conservative conduct in what they said and did.

As far as appreciating the sentiment you laid out, I do. I wish somebody had been there to save her. But the thing to keep in mind, especially in an open carry state is that you would have had a small window of time. You would have had to have seen him draw the weapon, drawn your own in response, aimed and shot before he could have pulled the trigger on her. If you weren’t capable of doing that, your sentiment would be just bravado.

C&J-
I don’t have Che posters. I know my history well enough not to be an admirer. But then, I’m not of that generation, and don’t really have much of a memory of real strongly brewed left-wing radicalism. I grew up on news reports of Ruby Ridge and Waco, the bombing of the Murrah Federal building. The radicals I saw most of, who killed the most people, spouted the fiercest rhetoric, and did the most damage were Right Wing. I mean, when was the last left-wing terrorist attack you can recall that had a high body count?

Amazingly free of violence. Amazing for what reason? The tendency to brandish weapons? The harsh, often violent rhetoric? The accusations of tyranny and fifth column behavior?

You want to call it bigotry, find call it bigotry, hide behind the kind of political correctness you despise so much when its used by the left.

I am not stigmatizing those who simply disagree. My target is fairly specific: those who threaten political violence to get what they want from the rest of us, who talk of sundering the union as a means of blackmailing the rest of the country into staying with their old policies.

Look at the title of my essay. Whoever it turns out is responsible. Look at the content.

If your people get hit by these accusations, it isn’t simply because of what people like me have said. It is because of what they themselves have said and done. You have to do a lot of twisting to buy that what Obama was saying about using votes to punish one’s enemies was anything else than the description of a basic principle. But what about Glenn Beck talking about strangling a Democrat? What about his reports of Liberals reading concentration camps for those on the right? What about his constant hawking of Gold and survivalist supplies? How much twisting do I have to do to make the suggestion of second amendment remedies coming from Sharron Angle’s own words disturbing?

You are so busy trying to protect the reputation of your party that you’re failing to see what a sisyphean task you’ve given yourself. When Angle’s rival in the primary talked about a barter system being an option in bringing healthcare costs, nobody had to do much editing. When Sarah Palin cuts her own political throat by screwing up the debate, it’s so bad that much of what Tina Fey’s Palin says in the parody is a direct quote of things she actually said! We don’t have to do much spin to get people to regard her resignation halfway through her term as Governor seem kind of pathetic. It is pathetic! It is shameful! And the sooner you can admit this, the sooner you can be through with such morons and get the smart people who do credit to conservatism out there!

The constant defensiveness and the unwillingness to conceded obvious problems, obvious failures, and obviously terrible looking situations is crippling your party.

You’re not fighting me or the leftist bigots you fume against. You’re fighting your own party’s failure to be honest with itself about how bad it looks. You’re fighting your own party’s poor impulse control. You’re fighting the consequences of having a party where the grace, dignity, intelligence, and other important qualities of your candidates have taken second place to fierce loyalty to the party, and repetition of its talking points.

You can’t keep this up. The sixties is becoming ancient history to the new generations. My cousin’s kids will be voters in the next decade or two, and they weren’t alive in the eighties. What will the sixties and its conflicts mean to them?

Personally, I think Loughner is just crazy, and applying political labels to him is futile. But I think it’s fair to say that the depth and breadth of hostility towards liberals, especially with the kind of borderline incitement that seems far too common in the rhetoric, is not making the situation better. It’s only making it easier for those whose judgment and impulse control is bad as it is to consider acting out. I once had a roommate in college who went schizophrenic, and I tell you it was one of the most frightening encounters in my life.

These people are taking in what the outside environment is feeding them, and if what the outside environment is saying is that drastic measures like “second amendment remedies” will be necessary to save the country, they might just go ahead and try to be the heroes they are in their own mind, with attendant consequences.

Let me worry about my party. I don’t deal anymore kindly with the 9/11 truthers than I do with Birthers or Beck conspiracy nuts, and for the same reason. I believe in founding the debate and the political order on reason, on things that can be proved and observed and tangibly dealt with. I don’t want my government caught up in self-perpetuating loops of unprovable BS. I want my country’s sanity back.

But please, do your part to calm your side down, and bring reason back to it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2011 12:16 AM
Comment #316643

“You have just acknowledged our second amendment right to bear arms!”

Weary still stereotyping people I see.

“Who pays for this small security force for certain events, j2t2?”

Weary, are you saying that in light of this massacre in Tuscon that we shouldn’t have our elected representatives protected when they are on the job? With rights such as the second amendment offers comes responsibilities, something many on the far right seem to forget. It is obvious that the mentally ill and deranged can obtain weapons rather easy. When public officials are meeting groups of constituents such as the case in Tuscon this weekend security is an issue. You seem to favor the wealthy that can afford their own security, which could preclude many that cannot buy their way into office, but reeks of fascism,IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 10, 2011 12:53 AM
Comment #316644

j2t2

I am a little sensitive about this because of what I have seen on the news so far and because of the sense I have that the acts of this madman are being conflated with conservatives in general and tea party people in particular. If I am mistaken and that was not the intention of those making comments here, I appologize.

We all understand that this guy did not have the characteristics of any legitimate American political movement. His atheism, flag burning, “truther” characteristics certainly rule out his being a conservative. He has other characteristics that make him no liberal. He is a nut. If we all leave it at that, we can all agree that such political violence is horrible.

There is no reason to believe that this guy paid any particular attention to loud commentators such as Limbaugh on the right or Olberman or Kos on the left.

You are jumping to conclusions if you attribute anything at all. And I am reacting to this kind of bigotry and prejudice as we must.

Your Mr. Smerconish is engaged in precisely the kind of ignorant bigotry I am talking about. He evidently knows little of the Kennedy assassination, if he equates Oswald, who was openly a communist sympathizer with the “right”. I don’t believe he can be that stupid, so I figure he must be trying to manipulate.

Of course, he seems to have forgotten that some pinheads even made a movie about killing Bush and there was plenty of hatred expressed. It is, unfortunately, what people do with politicians.

We should not accept this kind of bigotry and foolishness.

Stephen

As I have demonstrated, the shooter seemed to dislike conservative things as much as liberal ones. I suppose we could blame the liberals for his hate of conservatives and vise versa, but would that make sense.

Those who try to exploit this kind of tragedy for political aims should be ashamed of themselves.

You mention Oklahoma etc. Those things are outside the political mainstream. The difference is that many on the left embraced the 1960s radicals, some of Obama’s friends included. Nobody on the legitimate conservative side embraced the attacks. Nobody. So just stop it. It is dishonest to set up another straw man like that.

re Ruby Ridge and Waco - what do you remember about them? For example, do you recall who got killed on Ruby Ridge, how many and by whom?

There are nutty leftists and nutty rightists. They often overlap. The left gets justifiably angry when people point to leftist nuts as being part of the liberal mainstream. We conservatives feel the same way on the other side.

You say “Let me worry about my party. I don’t deal anymore kindly with the 9/11 truthers than I do with Birthers” The killer was indeed a “truther” so maybe you should worry about him too.

You have not basis on which to extrapolate the acts of this madman, who was as much as liberal as a conservative, to conservative commentators. He is as much “one of yours” as “one of ours.”

IMO - the liberals on this blog are being dishonest or delusional. You are all admitting that the shooter was nuts. We all agree that he evidently was an atheist, truther, flag burning pot smoker, none of which are characteristics of typical conservatives. There is no basis to believe that he was influenced by conservative commentators or even listened to them. Yet you jump to the hateful conclusion that he did what he did because of them.

Let me stipulate that I do not believe that the characteristics that the shooter shared with many radical leftist commentators (i.e. atheism, tolerance for flag burning, truthers etc) influenced his evil act. I expect the same respect in return from all of you with what you might perceive as conservative traits.

Posted by: C&J at January 10, 2011 1:09 AM
Comment #316645

Stephen

O yes, please calm your side show and bring back some reason to the debate.

Posted by: C&J at January 10, 2011 1:10 AM
Comment #316647
Obama’s own words referred to a political knife-fight. He explicitly made it metaphorical, a way of indicating that he would take extra firepower, so to speak, to the debate.


What’s so “metaphorical”ly different than saying “second amendment remedies”, so to speak?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2011 1:45 AM
Comment #316648

So, I guess the airwaves, both audio and video, being filled with strident hate language (mostly directed toward the left), has nothing to do with the atmosphere of fear that is currently prevalent in our society?

People believing they must carry weaponry, in order to survive, is acceptable in a civilized country?

Okay…I guess…but, I always thought we were better than this. We had seemed to be distancing ourselves from the Old West mentality, but are now heading back that direction. I’m pretty sure the bell cow is not the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 10, 2011 3:44 AM
Comment #316649

d.a.n. wrote:

“Seriously?”

Yeah d.a.n., seriously.

“That sort of rhetoric sounds very much like the rhetoric you deplore?”

Not at all, sir. Unlike the moronic Sarah Palin, I’ve never been one to use the insane rhetoric of gun violence in order to try to instigate trouble, or to try make a point.

phx8:

What is wrong with this country?

In my opinion, one of the many things that’s gone very wrong in this country can be laid (much like a turd) directly in the lap of Rupert Murdoch. This man has welcomed, and indeed encourages all of this sociopathic violent rhetoric — because it’s been good for his market share.
Now a lot of people have been shot dead, including a little nine year old girl, while others are currently fighting for their lives.
The Macabre Murdoch only reaps the deaths that he has sown.

Btw, I find it a little strange how so many are trying to designate this unhinged shooter as leftist (simply because he claimed to have been a reader of Marx), when it appears that this nut had ties to a tea-party lead anti-immigration group in Arizona.

From the Huffington Post:Jared Loughner YouTube Videos, MySpace Suggest Alleged Shooter May Have Ties To Hate Group

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2011 4:17 AM
Comment #316651

“the atmosphere of fear that is currently prevalent in our society”…

..is all in your head, Marysdude.
and the bell cow is the Democratic Party.

It’s time the Democratic Party realizes it has been in control of this country for the majority of it’s existance. By default the Democratic Party must accept the blame for this country’s condition.

We, the opposition, tried to correct the ways of the Democratic Party, but for some reason everyone thinks the Democratic Party is the cure-all for this country’s woes. Thru thick and thin it’s the Democratic Party that ends up the saviour.

Were they the actual saviour or were they the manufacturer of the problem and the dictator of the solution?

You people really need to think about it. If the Federal Reserve was created to regulate the business cycle why is the business cycle still wildly fluctuating?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2011 4:30 AM
Comment #316655

Adrienne

Thanks for the use of the word “appears”. Myopia is a strange things to have. There will be an overabundant “ties to the tea party” charges and none of them will hold water. Tea Party organizers will not allow people of that ilk to have “ties” to them. There is no such thing as an “anti-immigration group” in AZ. There again people shoot from the hip when they can have their aka in print thinking they are smart enough to show people they have knowledge when they are ignorant. There are people who are against illegal aliens comming to this country. That is not even close to anti-immigration. That is symantically screwy. That is hatful and biased and bigoted. That is from the left. You on the left are so busy assigning blame that your compassion is totally lacking for the Congresswoman and her family and associates. This is not the time for plinking at targets. It is time for everyone to show they really care for this lady. I might be mistaken, though. Compassion from the left has rarely been shown anywhere.

SD
The young man and his friends have said he was a Marxist. Since his published ideas are now pulled from sight it is rather difficult to show to your closed eyes anything anyway.

Posted by: tom humes at January 10, 2011 6:18 AM
Comment #316656

tom humes,

Well, you just closed the civility gap…thanks.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 10, 2011 9:02 AM
Comment #316657

I wonder how Rush and Company would react if I was to call them “Sniffling little self-centered over paid brats?”

Strange thing is there is a way to say it that does not draw upon Human Emotion, but states the same facts.

Because “Why do you cry when nobody listens to your ideas that seem only to serve the spoiled rich?”

Can Political Correctness be taught to our Media, Pundits, and Elected Officials?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 10, 2011 9:05 AM
Comment #316659

Henry,

Rush and company have the ‘voice’. You may have the voice of reason, but you don’t have the ‘voice’. What you say about them merely feeds their already expanded ego’s.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 10, 2011 11:29 AM
Comment #316660

C&J-
You ought to read The Society of Mind by Marvin Minsky, if only just to get an alternative sense of how people think.

From my perspective, your people are in trouble over this, regardless of the man’s real politics (which given his insanity are difficult to discern), because your people have already preconditioned the rest of America to mark your folks as suspects.

You’re thinking, “It’s not fair for him to be associated with us if he’s not like us.”

Well, granted that it might not be correct, but that’s not how this works. The PR problems you have are largely your party’s fault.

In the absence of detailed knowledge of the culprit, the basic elements all have strong associations with the right-wing these days.

Your people have been making threats, veiled or otherwise, of political violence. They’ve been recklessly exposing some to such threats, and encouraging an atmosphere of intimidation.

Democrats have been targeted, sometimes almost literally, as in the case of Sarah Palin’s infamous graphic showing crosshairs over several districts, including Giffords, as targets. Palin’s people are trying to BS the media by saying the crosshairs represent those from survey equipment, but is that the first thought that comes into anybody’s head when they see crosshairs? I mean, damn, is an avid gun-owner really going to be oblivious to that association? It should slap them in the face.

And the gun nuts among the Tea Partisans showed up at rallies brandishing weapons openly.

The rhetoric, the symbolism, the brandishing of arms… it takes effort not to make the association, and really, in our 24 Hour News Culture, do you really think the damage isn’t going to be done?

In a way, an attack like the attack on Giffords was anticipated by the left for quite some time, thanks to all the reckless behavior on the right. You think it’s delusion, dishonesty. No, I think it’s people making the best use of limited information. Your people primed liberals for quite some time to expect violence to break out. How can you say some of the things that your people have said, push the kind of veiled and not-so-veiled threats your side has pushed, and not predispose people to imagine such things are on the horizon?

If your side didn’t want to be seen as nuts, why elevate folks like Sharron angle? Why elevate folks like Glenn Beck? Why make excuses for Christine O’Donnell and Sarah Palin? Why indulge the paranoid conspiracy theories?

Granted, the conclusion that he’s a Tea Partier may be erroneous. But it is natural, at first blush.

You may be furious that your side is getting the flack, but it’s sort of like that scene from Fight Club where that one guy gets shot and killed by a cop while pulling off one of Project Mayhem’s pranks.

Ed Norton’s character reminds them that they were running around wearing ski masks and setting off explosives. Of course the cop was going to start shooting, he says!

You folks have been doing the political equivalent. Birtherism. Red-baiting. Constant allegations of unconstitutional power grabs. Allegations that Democrats are trying to sell this country out to the terrorists, or institute a totalitarian regime. Open questioning of the election results, with the allegation that Obama’s voters were really fakes created by ACORN. Voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud, your side has yelled.

Your side has been playing with fire since 2000, getting worse and worse about their allegations towards Democrats, and rejecting more and more outside review of the facts.

Do you really think you can embrace such a frightening level of paranoid conspiracy theory-mongering, employ such violent rhetoric, and not clear the path in many people’s minds to believe that your side may be capable of political violence?

Personally, I think that what’s happening with your side is quite similar with what happened with the Democrats at the end of the Johnson Administration. And one element of that was the rise of aggressive splinter groups who cause headaches for the main establishment of the party, even as the party tries to keep together.

The radical left’s pretty much been sedate for the last couple decades. It’s the Radical Right that’s done the high profile damage, made the news that makes people scared of them. I think its time for you to realize that you have a problem on your hands. I think its time for you to stop trying to draw an equivalence in order to blunt the Democrat’s use of this incident against the Republicans, and start joining those Democrats in rejecting your fringe, rejecting reckless rhetoric.

Weary Willie-
It’s figurative language, and doesn’t make sense as anything but. Folks on Capitol Hill don’t have actual knife fights. So, nobody of sufficient common sense could confuse his statement with a literal call to arms. But Sharron Angle? You could reasonably argue that she considers folks taking up arms against the government something that could really happen. That’s especially true, considering that taking up arms against government intrusion is one of the big reasons people on your side cite for the importance of allowing gun ownership.

It’s time the Democratic Party realizes it has been in control of this country for the majority of it’s existance. By default the Democratic Party must accept the blame for this country’s condition.

Is it now? I was thinking it was time for tea and crumpets.

We, the opposition, tried to correct the ways of the Democratic Party, but for some reason everyone thinks the Democratic Party is the cure-all for this country’s woes. Thru thick and thin it’s the Democratic Party that ends up the saviour.

Everyone? Why the crappy election results?

Seriously, fellow. You should do some research into what the business cycle was like for most of the years before 1900. Hell, you should realize that Depressions were actually a common occurrence before the great one.

The truth is, since the Great Depression, the worst of the recent recessions was 4.1%. Deflation’s been rare since the end of WWII.

Thought without reference to reality is merely structured fantasy, subject to the whims of the mind. Beck can market paranoia about the Federal Reserve, but he can’t provide the wisdom or the knowledge he apparently doesn’t have.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2011 11:39 AM
Comment #316661

“I am a little sensitive about this because of what I have seen on the news so far and because of the sense I have that the acts of this madman are being conflated with conservatives in general and tea party people in particular.”

C&J I think the fact that you and others on the right are so defensive about this says quite a bit. I meant sensitive in that any comment made about hateful rhetoric and such by the talk radio types exemplified by Rush seems to be taken as a personal affront. But many on the right need to face the fact that they have listened to and by inaction if nothing else allowed the hate and rage to spiral into a level not seen in decades. Since the election of our first bi-racial president the level of rhetoric by these talk radio hate mongers and the Beck’s of the world has fanned the flames of hatred and bigotry. What those like Smerconish have been saying is the rhetoric is overboard. They have not said “conservative”, they have said the talking heads are the problem. Many here it seems have taken that as a direct affront. They need to take time to reflect on why they would think it is a direct affront. We have lost a federal judge this time along with innocent bystanders. Why does it seem to be the dems and left of center groups being physically attacked if there is no merit to the level of hateful rhetoric theory?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 10, 2011 11:58 AM
Comment #316662

tom humes:

The young man and his friends have said he was a Marxist.

Could you provide a link to where you read this?

Here’s link that quotes from this guy’s nutty anti-government rants on youtube — where he talked about not being able to “trust the current government” and was upset by “currency that’s not backed by gold and silver”.

Flashback: Conservatives mocked DHS report warning of ‘antigovernment’ violence
Arizona shooter left trail of anti-government screeds on Internet

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2011 12:11 PM
Comment #316663

Stephen, If it were Bush that said those words you would be up in arms but because it was one of your own you blow it off, talk about hypocricy. If anyone is instigating it is you people on the left with your blame game. On CNN one viewer wrote that the shooter was neither liberal or conservative but a WACK JOB. You liberals can keep up with your petty blame the other guy crap but people are starting to see through your BS.

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 12:15 PM
Comment #316664

Was it illegal to build a mosque at ground zero?, “No, not illegal but is it right or ethical”. But hey when people say, politicians and their pundits should be more careful about what they say then its all about free speech. Where the cobersation on ethics now?
As for Che Guevera, most American politican icons did the exact same things and they are not seen as murderers. America “liberated” itself from the British Empire just as Fidel and Che did for Cubans. I can assure you having been to Cuba that Cubans see their leaders the same as Americans see their forefathers. The American government is still trying to justify the never ending embargo and paint the Cuban government as the worst type of communism/socialism but hey, we dont need to worry about China since they lend the US lots of money to go and “liberate” other countries.

Posted by: The other Paul at January 10, 2011 12:20 PM
Comment #316665

Adrienne Try the Huffington post they had a list of books he favored one was “The communist manifesto” and Hitler’s ” Mein Kampf”

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 12:20 PM
Comment #316666

Marysdude,
Although I do not nor want the ‘voice’ seeing that it is now our elected officials who are in danger of being harmed, I’m willing to bet the Bosses of Rush and Company will tale away their ‘voice’ if they keep making it harder for the Wealthy to live in America.

For KAP,
I don’t care if the kid was a Democrat or a Republican, Conservative or Liberal. The fact he has got it in his mind that “We the People” are the enemy just because we do not follow the information printed by Right Wing Extremists is enough to call upon Congress to shut down such talk. For it can no longer be in doubt that such speech is causing our citizens to act in the same manner as the Enemy aboard.

And while neither liberal or conservative, feeding the fire of hate and discontent to the Enemy within should IMHO be outright treason!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 10, 2011 12:35 PM
Comment #316667

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/8/934360/-Who-is-Jared-Lee-Loughner

caitieparker This is a circus. Good Morning America just called me. 10 minutes ago

caitieparker @antderosa it’s loughner just checked my year book.
10 minutes ago in reply to antderosa

caitieparker @lakarune I haven’t seen him since ‘07. Then, he was left wing.
35 minutes ago in reply to lakarune

caitieparker @noboa more left. I haven’t seen him since ‘07 though. He became very reclusive.
37 minutes ago in reply to noboa

caitieparker @antderosa he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in ‘06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical.
38 minutes ago in reply to antderosa

caitieparker @antderosa As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.
43 minutes ago in reply to antderosa

caitieparker @antderosa he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven’t seen him in person since ‘07 in a sign language class

It’s on DailyKos so you lefties have to believe it.

Henry Schlatman

And while neither liberal or conservative, feeding the fire of hate and discontent to the Enemy within should IMHO be outright treason!

Posted by Henry Schlatman at January 10, 2011 12:35 PM

Do you mean like getting up in front of the nation and stating the war is lost?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2011 12:47 PM
Comment #316668

From the main article, through almost this entire thread, everyone is accusing each other of some form of responsibility or culpability in this whole tragedy.

Republicans aren’t responsible for this, and neither is Fox News, or Palin, or Obama, or Che Guevara, or Leftist ideas, or ANY cause or manifesto or anything else.

Can we please take a deep breath…

The left and the right ARE more polarized than ever, but when crazy idiots commit murder, it’s no more the fault of one political ideology than the other. You have to be a crazy to write the redundant “insane troll logic” - MEME made me laugh - that this guy put up on Youtube.

So please, this guy’s actions are terrible, truly horrible, but the highest compliment any of us could pay this jackass would be to label him as “representing” or “acting on behalf of” ANY reasonable, non-violent organization out there.

When Major Hassan al-Nidal (sp?) yelled “Allah Akbar” and started killing people on Fort Hood - the Media practically screamed “DON’T RUSH TO JUDGEMENT” and now we have another killer, just as deplorable, and I echo the sentiment that was good enough a few months ago.

DON’T RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 10, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment #316669

KAP,

“Try the Huffington post they had a list of books he favored one was “The communist manifesto” and Hitler’s ” Mein Kampf”.”

The “list” also included “Peter Pan”, “Aesop’s Fables”, “Brave New World”, and “Animal Farm”, all of which make up for a rather eclectic list, so what exactly is your point?

It appears to me that this guy was more an anarchist than a Marxist, or socialist.
The police are also investigating his possible ties to an online white supremacist, anti-immigration group. Hardly a hotbed of Marxist/socialist ideology.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 10, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment #316670

Henry, your getting like Stephen reading something that was NOT written. Was the man who shot Regan a liberal or conservative? NO HE WAS A NUT JOB. A few years back there was a contributer called Kim Sue on WB who constantly called for the assasination of Bush, a left wing NUT JOB. How about those who don’t follow the left wing extremist info? I suggest that you people on the left are just as guilty of fanning the fires of hate as is those on the right.

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 1:00 PM
Comment #316671

BTW,

Wasn’t it ironic that Giffords was the person that read the “First Amendment” during the love fest in Congress last week?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 10, 2011 1:01 PM
Comment #316672

BTW, BTW,

Was it the liberals who were calling for a “Second Amendment solution” for the Congress?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 10, 2011 1:16 PM
Comment #316673

Rocky, I know there were other books he favored. I just highlighted those two. Have you read the “Communist manifesto or Mein kampf” I haven’t and have no desire to. Books like Peter Pan and Wizzard of Oz do have some violence in them as does other fantasy books. The point is what you put into your mind and how you act on those thoughts. Do you go out and act violently because you read a book with violence in it or not, or act like Hitler because you read “Mein Kampf”

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 1:17 PM
Comment #316674

KAP,

I started to read Mein Kampf but was either too young or the book was just way too boring to complete.

The point is that regardless of the books we read, it doesn’t automatically follow that we must adhere to the ideologies contained in the book.

If I read the Koran, for instance, does that make me a Muslim?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 10, 2011 1:29 PM
Comment #316675

KAP:

a list of books he favored one was “The communist manifesto” and Hitler’s ” Mein Kampf”

All that proves was that he was a reader of both far left and far right ideologies. If it’s confirmed that he was involved with an anti-immigrant/anti-government group that may tell us where on the political spectrum he currently placed himself.
Of course, no matter where this guy stood politically, obviously he is totally insane.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2011 1:34 PM
Comment #316677

Adrienne, Agree he was totally insane
Rocky, I didn’t say you must adhere to what is written in books but how do they influence your thought is what I am getting at. If you read a book with alot of violence in it or watch a movie with alot of violence, How does it influence you to act, most I would say would not act violently, but a few like this shooter did. If you read the Koran it makes you no more Muslim then reading the Bible makes you a Christian.

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 1:47 PM
Comment #316678

KAP-
Quoting Sharron Angle:

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

With rhetoric like this coming from your side, exactly why are you angry and shocked that people first thought of Tea Partiers, when a Democratic politician gets gunned down?

I think I’ve conceded quite sufficiently the fact that he’s a whack-job, and that left-right labels miss the point.

That said, your anger should be directed at yourselves. It’s not our fault that after so many years of intensifying hostility and threat from right-wing rhetoric, after all the brandished weapons, after the stomped protestor and the falsely arrested reporter, that we look at an attempted assassination in Arizona, that deep red state, and first think that it could be a Tea Partier.

The escalation of hostility from the right has not been ignored, and nobody else is looking at it with eyes that justify what they see as the necessary words and acts of patriots.

If you don’t want to be the first suspects, quit brandishing guns at rallies, quit making inflammatory statements to the effect of armed revolution, and quit painting the Democrats as practically inhuman enemies. Start being constructive, positive, inspirational, rather than reckless fearmongers who flirt with anarchism.

Weary Willie-
I don’t have to believe one post of one unconfirmed sources tweets just because it’s on Daily Kos. In fact, I’ve argued several times on Kos against people taking questionable sources as truth.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2011 1:51 PM
Comment #316679

Another nut, threatening to kill another Democrat:
After AZ shootings, Rep. Denny Davis told he’s ‘next’

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2011 2:10 PM
Comment #316680

d.a.n.:

Thanks for the correction on comment #316609. I’m very particular in what I post since I have my name on it.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 10, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment #316681

Stephen, Your own President used fighting words as WW has posted and I, watching news reports have heard him say. So get off the blame the right BS. Stephen, while stationed in Bremerton, Wa, at times I walked down the streets of town carrying my rifle I had at the time but it didn’t mean I was going to use it. Stephen how soon we forget the retoric used by the left during the Bush administration. Both right and left need to tone down the retoric. And if those in DC keep up the way they are going and not listening to WE THE PEOPLE I’m affraid there will be a revolution of the People against Government. Stephen we have a second ammendment right to keep and bare arms. If the local laws allow you to carry a weapon in plain sight there is nothing you can do about it, that just means you can do the same at a rally, now if you go to use it that is a whole different thing.
This shooter was just a plain NUT JOB.

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 2:16 PM
Comment #316682

KAP,

“If you read a book with alot of violence in it or watch a movie with alot of violence…”

You are making Adrienne’s point for her.

I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy, this doesn’t mean I always have my head in space, or believe in dragons and gnomes.

I hardly think any of the books on the “list” would qualify as violent.

From what I have read this guy was extremely disturbed, and from the accounts from his acquaintances he had been that way for a while. Accounts from his neighbors would lead me to believe his father is nuts as well.

I believe our psyche is formed more by our relationships with our parents and family than any influence from what we read or view in movies or on TV.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 10, 2011 2:17 PM
Comment #316683

Perception is everything.

Draw a picture of a Democrat turning America into a Socialist country often enough and loud enough, people begin to believe Democrats to be evil Commies. Draw a picture of TeaPublicans being knuckle dragging, gun toting, shoot first and ask questions later, types and somebody gets shot…hmmm…wonder shy our first thoughts go to the right???

The problem is that TeaPublicans drew both pictures. And did so without thought of the CONSEQUENCES.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 10, 2011 2:30 PM
Comment #316684

I don’t know Rocky maybe Remer could explain it better since he deals in psycology. But I know that things around us and things we subject ourselves to influence us and our behavior to the point that we want to better ourselves or that we act irrationally like the shooter did.

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #316685

Dude, nice left wing hate filled comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 2:33 PM
Comment #316686

Good op-ed in the NYT from Paul Krugman:
Climate of Hate

Quote from the link:

It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.

The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.

But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2011 2:38 PM
Comment #316687

Another good NYT op-ed from Gail Collins:
A Right To Bear Glocks?

Quote:

Today, the amazing thing about the reaction to the Giffords shooting is that virtually all the discussion about how to prevent a recurrence has been focusing on improving the tone of our political discourse. That would certainly be great. But you do not hear much about the fact that Jared Loughner came to Giffords’s sweet gathering with a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to buy legally because the law restricting their sale expired in 2004 and Congress did not have the guts to face up to the National Rifle Association and extend it.

If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms, Giffords would probably still have been shot and we would still be having that conversation about whether it was a sane idea to put her Congressional district in the cross hairs of a rifle on the Internet.

But we might not have lost a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Giffords’s 30-year-old constituent services director and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council at her school and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked.

Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”

America has a long, terrible history of political assassinations and attempts at political assassination. What we did not have until now is a history of attempted political assassination that took the lives of a large number of innocent bystanders. The difference is not about the Second Amendment. It’s about a technology the founding fathers could never have imagined.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2011 2:57 PM
Comment #316688

Adrienne, As I said to Stephen “How soon we forget the retoric used by the left during the Bush administration.”
But this does not make it right. IMO we need to curb the hate from both left and right or more trouble will occur. BTW you could have picked a better source then the biased NYT.

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 3:00 PM
Comment #316689


Demonetization of ones enemies is part of the human psyche.

Most of us have to be wound up and pointed in the direction of the enemy, but some of us are self-winding, needing only to know or sometimes be told who the enemy is.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2011 3:01 PM
Comment #316690

KAP:

BTW you could have picked a better source then the biased NYT.

They’re both op-ed’s — meaning opinion editorials.
You don’t like the source? Too bad. You can always post your own links if you don’t care for mine.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2011 3:20 PM
Comment #316691

>Dude, nice left wing hate filled comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 02:33 PM

KAP,

Your electronic recognizer has a short in it. Mine was not a hate filled comment. It was a political observation.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 10, 2011 3:23 PM
Comment #316692

KAP-
Why claim equivalence? Why not claim innocence?

Essentially, you’re saying, “Yes, we made all those terrible comments. But so were Democrats!”

The tu quoque argument is always a ridiculous defense if you’re trying to refute a critique on the inflammatory nature of your language.

The approach is about shutting people up about your problem by making them feel vulnerable about their own exposure on the issue. Well, I’m sure you can find something insulting on Bush, but the Truthers were not welcomed with open arms on sites like Kos, nor were acts of violence against the government, nor were talks of “second amendment” reprisals against Republican legislators.

So, I don’t feel especially vulnerable on the issue. As angry as we got with Bush, we critiqued policy, and recommended peaceful means, including those at the ballot box, as our means to fight back.

Democrats have a sense of restraint because we take it seriously when something like that is held against us. We haven’t been taught that being brazenly hostile, edging up to the threshold of good taste on rhetoric is a good thing. We have our exceptions, but they are exceptions.

Your people have set themselves up. Quit whining about being persecuted. The Right’s simply getting held accountable for all the hatred and provocation it threw into the atmosphere to win the 2010 elections.

What does it say about your side that you’re already alleging that the Left is going to orchestrate some sort of clampdown? That your talk has already wandered back into that conspiratorial territory?

You want to say outrageous things about us, heighten the fear and the anger, but then not get held accountable for what you’ve said. You can’t claim we want to destroy America, push the notion that people might have to get out the second amendment remedies if you don’t get your way, and then act surprised when people think of your words first when somebody actually goes out there and exercises that remedy.

I don’t hate your folks. I think people can get caught up in overheated rhetoric who are otherwise fine and decent. But I also think that when one talks the language of insurrection and rebellion, one had better be prepared for somebody to take the call to arms, explicit or implicit, seriously.

The right has got to stop flirting with the language and thinking of armed takeover, because sooner or later, one gets caught up in a feedback loop where the need to defend one’s politics against one’s rivals leads one to support ideas and figures whose character one has not properly examined.

This is a wakeup call: the time for violent rhetoric is done, if there ever was a legitimate season for it to begin with.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2011 3:34 PM
Comment #316695

The truth is, the political rhetoric (at least the rhetoric that uses gun, military or violence as a theme) will be dropped for at least a few weeks, if not months by politicians.

But bloggers who generally use psydoneums will not (a small minority will pledge not to use vitriol) refrain from this first amendment right, no matter how vitriolic it may seem.

The scariest thing that I see coming is that many people want to limit what they consider ‘vitriol, hate speech, speech that uses gun or other metaphorical imagery, etc).

The problem is, aside from the first amendment, who will be the Arbiter of such ‘vitriolic’ speech? Who decides? What one considers ‘over the top’ or ‘extreme rhetoric’ may not be that; that language may simply offend a certain portion of society, but not all.

What to do? To be sure, we cannot come up with some pre-approved ‘list’ of rhetoric or metaphors that cannot be used. No such list or matrix could ever be assembled without outrage, the constitution notwithstanding.

Fair or not, Sarah Palin is now (and here’s the rub of the aforementioned paragraph) the enemy of many liberals, Democrats and Republicans alike. Get my point? It’s difficult to not use metaphorical words or speech without possibly offending someone. That’s exactly why the first amendment right to free speech is sacred.

Many are suggesting that “words and imagery have ‘Consequences.’” They can. But where do we draw the line? Who’s the arbiter of such rhetoric? By now, many on here have seen or read some of the very rhetoric that is gotten so many people upset used by our president. For example:

All from Barack Obama -

“I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

“if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun…”

“we’re gonna punish our enemies.”

“punch back twice as hard.”

This is very dangerous language coming from a very influential member of our government. Not the same as ‘right wingers, radio talk-show hosts, etc.’ you say? You get my point. Any person who tries to score political points by ascribing blame and/or finger poining is just as guilty as the people they are puporting to villianize.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 10, 2011 3:52 PM
Comment #316696

I don’t often listen to Rush Limbaugh, but today I listened to the whole 3 hours. He had a great show dealing with the very things KAP is talking about; the hate speech from the left, which is ignored by the MSM. The transcript of todays program will be posted on his web site by tommorrow. It would be well worth reading, and as usual, he provides links for proof.

Posted by: Z at January 10, 2011 3:54 PM
Comment #316697

SD wrote:

“I mean, I recounted an actual commercial by an actual Republican, who had George Washington saying in response to all the grievances the candidate laid out, “Gather your armies.” He also compared taxation to Slavery.”

To be fair Stephen, what about Florida Rep. Alan Grayson and his ‘Taliban Dan’ and other offensive commercials. Grayson even tried to connect his opponent’s wife to some nefarious plot about rights of women and rape, I believe.

And don’t forget the infamous HCR debate where on the House Floor, Grayson did a little ‘show and tell’ with a placard that basically said: “Republican Plan: ‘Americans should Die.’”

Dude, it cuts both ways. The sooner someone realizes this, the quicker we can move on as a nation. I’m just sayin.’

This is turning into an Argument Ad Nauseam.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 10, 2011 4:06 PM
Comment #316698

Dude maybe to you but to others it was HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 4:06 PM
Comment #316699

Adrienne

The link to “Denny Davis” should have been Danny Davis. It is only a very small blip but when you use public people at least the name should be correct. The onus is on the person who put the link together.

Well, we have heard much gnashing of teeth about how the tea partiers and Sarah Palin should share the responsibility for this event. I disagree.

Let us go a different direction. Music plays songs with rape portrayed in the music. Is not that a very violet theme? And who puts it out? Movies with violence is likewise a message that could influence. And who produces those movies? It certainly is not the JBS or Tea Partiers. The language in those entertainment areas is sometimes so vile is can make a person vomit. My son had on his cell a response to whoever called him a message that was “destroy everything” and was repeated until he answered the phone. I would never teach my children that kind of thing. He will someday realize that he made a bad choice. Whatever we teach our children sometimes takes some time to get to the core of the behavioral portion of their character. In the meantime, parents should continue to set the example they feel is the best they can do. Notice I did not say the best I believe in. I leave the value to the parent in each case.

Posted by: tom humes at January 10, 2011 4:12 PM
Comment #316700

So Stephen, It’s OK for your president to instigate violence? Quit with the BS Stephen your side is just as guilty as the right is in using hate speech. All I’m saying is both sides need to tone down the BS retoric.

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 4:14 PM
Comment #316702

Kevin Lagola,

All from Barack Obama -

“I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

“if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun…”

“we’re gonna punish our enemies.”

“punch back twice as hard.”


Your quotes attributed to Obama are making the right wing web site rounds. None approach “reload!” or the use of gun sights, or Angle’s ‘reference to the 2nd amendment and taking out Reid,’ but let’s review them anyhow:

Regarding the parsed “get in their face” quote, he was telling people to get in their friends faces if they believed McCain campaign lies. Here’s the whole quote: “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,” he said. “And if they tell you that, ‘Well, we’re not sure where he stands on guns.’ I want you to say, ‘He believes in the Second Amendment.’ If they tell you, ‘Well, he’s going to raise your taxes,’ you say, ‘No, he’s not, he’s going lower them.’ You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case.”

Regarding the “Punish your enemies” quote, here’s the whole quote: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.” He meant to punish via a vote. Nothing violent as you are suggesting with your partial quote.

“Punch back twice as hard.” The quote is not Obama’s that I can find. I did see it in the headline on a right wing site, but it looks like the headline was fabricated, as even in the article, it references a different quote, but not attributed to Obama.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun…” Yes, he did say that one. Certainly ill-advised language in retrospect, but unless you are really ignorant, you know that is an old saying, “never bring a knife to a gun fight.” He made the statement in Phialdelphia, then joked, “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl.”

I mean, what’s next, you’re going to post that he once said, “We’ll shoot that idea down” and start ranting “He said SHOOT!”

Posted by: boomxtwo at January 10, 2011 4:43 PM
Comment #316703

boomxtwo,

I mean, what’s next, you’re going to post that he once said, “We’ll shoot that idea down” and start ranting “He said SHOOT!”

Posted by: boomxtwo at January 10, 2011 04:43 PM

What’s next boomxtwo? Are you going to say that Sharon Angle is trying to get people shoot Harry Reid? Oh, wait, It has been said. I guess taking someone out “of office” is a threat now?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2011 5:07 PM
Comment #316704

Kevin L. Lagola-
The point I would make is that you are already in a position where you’re having to backpedal from the severity of your rhetoric, sometimes in ridiculous, embarassing, and hardly convincing ways.

So what use is it to pretend that you alone can decide for yourself what is offensive and over the top? That will always be defined between the person communicating, and the person being communicated to.

The places to draw the line should be clear. For one, don’t encourage, explicitly or implicitly, reprisals against those you disagree with. Don’t engage in the emotional blackmail of using the threat of an armed uprising to create a chilling effect about certain legislation.

Respect the personal safety, the right to exist and live in peace of your opponent. And if the other person fails to observe such limits? You’re responsible for your own behavior, not theirs. You can remind them of the limits of decency, hold them accountable to a common standard, rather than using their error as an excuse for yours.

Just because we can’t have perfectly consistent standards doesn’t mean we don’t try to set them. The imperfection of common standards of good behavior should not be seen as justification for the absence of such standards. That way lies anarchy.

As far as Grayson goes, he was remarkable as a Democratic politician for his outspokenness. Which is to say, he did what your people do. Your people talked about Death Panels, branded a triple amputee veteran as a friend of Saddam and Bin Laden for crying out loud, yet you head for the fainting couch when he calls somebody Taliban Dan, or says the Republican plan is for people to “die quicker”.

The standards should cut both ways. I felt he was a bit of a blowhard myself, but then I feel the same for many Republicans. Can you say the same? Do you call out your people on their excesses? Or is this argument of yours mainly employed to deflect criticism for those who observe no such limits?

Quit equivocating. Apply limits to your own, just as I do.

KAP-
Quit the equivocation. My President isn’t instigating violence. He’s not broadcasting the home addresses of his competitors family and friends like one Republican did. He’s not talking about second amendment remedies to political problems. Why is it that the Right is so willing to talk about hate speech when somebody’s holding their feet to the fire about the atmosphere that their rhetoric created, but so quick to cry “Political correctness!” when we complain about a bigoted remark?

We are not just as guilty. It’s time your folks dealt with the reality of what they’ve been saying, instead of perpetually reassuring themselves that they haven’t crossed any lines.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2011 5:15 PM
Comment #316705

Stephen Daugherty, you and your post are disgusting. Your insinuations are disgusting. Why don’t you just go crawl back under the dailykos rock you came out from under? Are you on a democratic payroll, being paid to spew this evil? I honestly can’t believe there are Americans who would say the things you say. You sound to me like a evil person in a foreign country who is paid to say these things. Are you?

Posted by: Z at January 10, 2011 5:31 PM
Comment #316706

Weary Willie-
Well, here’s the quote again:

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

Very poor choice of words, especially given what leads into it. But when you play with fire, why be shocked when you light something ablaze, or at least scare people into thinking you will?

The phrase “take Harry Reid out”, having followed all that rhetoric about revolutions and second amendment memories certainly has more than one possible interpretation. A reasonable person might say, perhaps with some reservations “She couldn’t possibly mean that,” but not everybody’s reasonable. Just ask King Henry II about his ill-advised words to his knights regarding a certain troublesome priest.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2011 5:32 PM
Comment #316707

Have any of you liberal heard the fable “the boy who cried wolf”? At some point, you jumping to the conclusion that violence against a government official, or against any large gathering is the result of “conservative’s rhetoric” you begin to lose credence.

You did it here, where this mental case had no conservative ties and was spewing the same hate long before the Tea Party or Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann made any of their “inflamatory” comments. The case for that tie is not even tenuous, it doesn’t exist.

You did it with the NYC times square bombing…bloombergjournalist…agian without any merit, and eventually proven wrong.

The list can go on and on…either way, the answer to Stephen’s question up above is yes: I can blame you for jumping to invalid conclusions based on incorrect and incomplete assumptions.

But what I find truly humorous has not been touched on yet…

As conservatives we are guilty of one form of hypocracy (or at least a double standard) in our call that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional, but looking the other way for Bush’s wire taps, etc. That is one form of hypocracy. (And yes I still uphold it, believing that national security trumps the losses in this case, but I at least recognize the double standard that my opinion creates)…

But liberals shouting for the rule of law? You have to see that as just as hypocritical. After Arizona tries everything in its power (and possibly even outside its power) simply to uphold “the rule of law” against illegal immigrants and the entire liberal world crashed down on them…now you have the nerve/audacity to cite the rule or law as paramount? Tell me you at least recognize the hypocracy in that. Tell me you see how you create certain circumstances where Rule of Law reigns supreme, and others where Rule of Law can be set aside.

Posted by: Adam at January 10, 2011 5:34 PM
Comment #316708

Glenn Beck’s messaging gets a little confused.

The picture relates the problem that the Republicans have, having enjoyed the charge that their rhetoric and images have made in the popular culture, only to hit the brick wall of this current incident.

It’s easier to never start using such rhetoric and imagery than it is to stop using it once you’ve begun. Is it any wonder so many are throwing up a smokescreen about how violent their words and images have been?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2011 5:36 PM
Comment #316709

““If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun…” Yes, he did say that one.”


No he didn’t. Go to comment 316593 for what he said in context.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 10, 2011 5:49 PM
Comment #316710

“THE “TONE” OF OUR COUNTRY COMES FROM THE “TOP”

“Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother” – Chairman Obama

“Bring it on”- Obama Regime to The American People.

“Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans” – Obama

“I want all Americans to get in each others faces! – Obama

“You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Obama

“Republicans are our enemies”–Obama

** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

“I am going to strangle all Republicans who don’t agree with me politically”
– 5 Time Draft Dodger Biden

“the Cambridge Police acted Stupidly” ” – Beer Summit Gaffe Leader

“Democratic map with Republican targets on it”

“God Damn America” – Barrack Hussein Obama’s Spiritual Advisor

“We should rip the heart right out of the chest of a former Vice President of The United States!”
– Left Wing Hate Hero And Agitator for Leftist Terrorism – Shultz

Most Divisive Administration In History.”

Posted by: Z at January 10, 2011 5:52 PM
Comment #316711

j2t2: Sorry, but he did say it…

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

Posted by: Z at January 10, 2011 5:58 PM
Comment #316712

So what I get from reading all these posts is this:

1. The Democrats and liberals are trying to point to conservative hate speech as bad policy and practice and some go so far as to try to tie it to at least part of the shooter’s motivation.

2. The facts are that the shooter is a true nut job and held both left and right positions as well as some hateful attitudes towards Hispanic immigrants and Jews.

3. The Republicans and conservatives are staunchly defending the use of violent references to deal with its political opponents and see little wrong with it or view it as causing any harm.

That about sum it up?

Oh, yeah, every side seems to take the position “I’m right and you’re evil.”

Posted by: LibRick at January 10, 2011 6:03 PM
Comment #316714

Stephen

So you admit that this guy is “not like us” but then go onto to blame conservatives for liberal bigotry that lumps us in with him. Read any Goebbels lately?

I dislike the hate whether it is aimed at Sarah Palin, George Bush or Barack Obama. But don’t try to trip me up with your own bigotry. Just because you guys don’t know what you are talking about doesn’t mean we have to buy into your prejudice.

J2t2

I am sensitive because of liberal bigotry. Your stenotypes are lies, but too many fools believe them and act on their hate. That is why I have to call it each time I see it.

What I find troubling is how tenaciously you guys hold onto your hate.

Let’s consider the shooter. He is evidently an atheist, flag burning, dope smoking clown who dislikes the Constitution. Does that sound more like a conservative or maybe a liberal? Perhaps that is why you guys are so enthusiastic to blame it on conservatives.

Re reflecting on hateful rhetoric – remember when the pinheads accused George Bush of going to war for profit. Nothing is more hateful than that. Think of all the clowns attack Sarah Palin, even attacking her daughter Bristol. Maybe liberals should reconsider their hate.

And maybe liberals should lay off business. If a businessman gets shot, will it be because of leftist hate.

Posted by: C&J at January 10, 2011 6:22 PM
Comment #316715

Stephen, Let me make this clear, BOTH SIDES NEED TO TURN DOWN THE RETORIC!!!. Even Ed Schultz said the same thing tonight, HE BLAMED BOTH SIDES FOR THEIR RETORIC!!! Obama did instigate violence with his comments. “WHAT DOES YOU BRING A KNIFE, WE’LL BRING A GUN” mean. IT INSTIGATES VIOLENCE. SO BOTH SIDES ARE TO BLAME. Dig down deep and admit it Stephen your side is as much to blame as the other for the HATE retoric!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 6:24 PM
Comment #316716

LibRick,

More like, “I’m right, you’re blind”, coming from the left. Now coming from the right, you are correct.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 10, 2011 6:24 PM
Comment #316717

Z from ther link you gave us, which is the link I mentioned in the previous comment
“rejected a series of joint bipartisan town halls, and said that if there’s a political knife fight, he’d bring a gun,” McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said,”

This is from McCain’s spokesman telling us that Obama said “political knife fight”. It does sound bad when those on the right take it out of context and misquote it but not nearly as bad when it is in context and quoted correctly.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 10, 2011 6:26 PM
Comment #316720

Kevin L. Lagola:

Many are suggesting that “words and imagery have ‘Consequences.’” They can. But where do we draw the line?

How about not making shooting threats or putting bullseye targets on people? Seems a good place to start, no?

tom humes:

The link to “Denny Davis” should have been Danny Davis. It is only a very small blip but when you use public people at least the name should be correct. The onus is on the person who put the link together.

Uh huh. Well the point is that Democrats have been getting a hell of lot of death threats. And that following this shooting rampage, another nut is immediately issuing death threats to another Democratic Representative.

Well, we have heard much gnashing of teeth about how the tea partiers and Sarah Palin should share the responsibility for this event.

Yes, indeed — and with good reason. Maybe now people like Palin and Beck and O’Reilly might actually think about toning down their crazy rhetoric, and the tea party might think twice about the messages they choose to broadcast?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2011 6:38 PM
Comment #316721

j2t2, I don’t guess one of the qualifications to be a liberal is to be smart. The politico article was about McCain’s reponse to Obama’s statement, which was, ““If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

So, no matter how you spin it, it was said by Obama.

Posted by: Z at January 10, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #316722
Adrienne wrote: Palin, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly should all do jail time for inciting violence. The over the top rhetoric directed toward their dim-witted and unstable followers has been killing far too many people.
d.a.n wrote: Seriously?
Adrienne wrote: Yeah d.a.n., seriously. Not at all, sir. Unlike the moronic Sarah Palin, I’ve never been one to use the insane rhetoric of gun violence in order to try to instigate trouble, or to try make a point.
But you want to put them in jail, eh?

Good luck with that.
Threatening people with incarceration is not responsible rhetoric either, is it?
But feel free to dig that hole deeper.
Especially if any of this is true (which some of it appears to be true), because Barack Obama, and a lot of other people, according to you, should have to go to jail too, eh?

Some people seem to think only one political party is guilty of irresponsible and/or violent rhetoric.

That’s what happens when some people can not see around their own partisan blinders, and prefer to wallow in the circular partisan warfare, and blame the OTHER party, when the fact is, BOTH are guilty.

Again, for the thousandth time, there’s little (if any) difference between the politicians and their blind partisan loyalists in the IN-PARTY or the OUT-PARTY.

Those trying to use this incident for political purposes, and blame the OTHER party, is hypocritcal nonsense.

And again, pencilz don’t misppel wordz, spoons don’t make people fat, and guns don’t kill people.
Some people do those things.
Regardless of what someone else says, it doesn’t mean others must follow.
There are always going to be mentally unstable people who will find any reason they can to commit violent crimes.
The problem is mental illness; not guns, or what anyone else said (including Barack Obama’s irresponsible rhetoric).

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2011 7:18 PM
Comment #316723

Lib Rick

Your analysis is flawed in some points. Nobody likes the hate speech on the left or the right. Conservatives are not defending it on the right and liberals are not defending hate speech expressed on the left.

What some liberals are trying to do is a blood libel on conservatives, even though the guy is clearly nuts, as you say, and in fact has characteristics not associated with conservatives, such as being an atheists, burning flags & smoking dope. The shooter is an independent who didn’t vote in the last election, never attended a tea party rally, but we still get the implication.

Let me state clearly that I agree that the guy was nuts and was not representative of conservatives or liberals.

Posted by: C&J at January 10, 2011 7:19 PM
Comment #316725

C&J,

No, he is a nut, and you are right, he is NOT representative of either side/party/belief. We are also right in saying most violent rhetoric is coming from the right. Perhaps just because there are more loud voices on the right. Even a little from the left is too much. Mostly because we are smart enough to not get caught up in that type of conflict…er…oh, well, I tried.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 10, 2011 7:29 PM
Comment #316727

PS:

What do you have against us poor atheists? You’ve pounded us several times lately. I really am a good citizen…I promise!

Posted by: Marysdude at January 10, 2011 7:31 PM
Comment #316729

PPS:

I’ve NEVER burned a flag, although if that is the only way a wrong can be brought to light…

I haven’t smoked pot since ‘66…so, am I still a bad guy?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 10, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #316730

Dude are you admitting that your side is guilty of hate retoric as much as the right is?

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 7:35 PM
Comment #316732

C&J, What’s your problem with atheists?

Are you trying to lump atheists in with people like Jared Lee Loughner?

Do you want to punish atheists?

Do you think atheists have a right to their belief (or absence of belief)?

Do you have any proof that atheists’ beliefs are any less true than yours?

What does religion have to do with any of this?

You know what is just as disturbing as nut-case mass murders? It’s nut-case religious zealots that try to lump atheists (or anyone with different religious beliefs) in with mass murders. Your inferences are disgusting, and it appears you’re not even aware of it.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.


Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2011 7:36 PM
Comment #316733

Marysdude

Remember the vitriol aimed at Bush? You did some of it, BTW, so don’t tell me you don’t know what I mean. What about what people still say about Sarah Palin and even her family? On the Daily Kos just a few days ago they ran a headline about Gibbords (now taken down but you can still see the copy on Michelle Malkin) saying that she is “dead to” the person because she voted against Nancy Pelosi.

On the other hand, you guys always talk about Glen Beck. I have seen his program only a couple of times, but I have never heard him insight violence of any kind. I watch O’Reilly most nights; he also never incites hate.

At least we agree that this nut was not motivated or influence hate politics, conservative or liberal. So why do people keep on bringing it up? I suppose it is the same sort that blame violence on video games.

Posted by: C&J at January 10, 2011 7:37 PM
Comment #316735

SD said:

“The point I would make is that you are already in a position where you’re having to backpedal from the severity of your rhetoric, sometimes in ridiculous, embarassing, and hardly convincing ways.”

“So what use is it to pretend that you alone can decide for yourself what is offensive and over the top? That will always be defined between the person communicating, and the person being communicated to.”

Severity of my rhetoric? What? That’s not even my style of writing. My name is on my writings; therefore, I do not engage in ‘severe, ridiculous or embarassing’ rhetoric. If you don’t like my world view or my thoughts, that’s your problem. And of course my opinions are my own and that that doesn’t always make me think my views are ‘right.’ Therefore, when I’ve said something that I realize is either wrong or incorrect, I take responsibility by asserting such.

Also, I would Never suggest to anyone what they can or can’t say or write. My point, which I thought was articulated pretty clearly, is that it is almost impossible to legislate speech.

You seem to ‘go after’ people with whom you disagree with by attributing things or drawing conclusions to them that they never made.

Finally, why don’t you start 2011 off by not attributing to me, C&J, gergle, Tom Humes and others that the GOP is OUR party. There’s no such distinction. At least with me there’s not. I’m a lifelong registered Democrat who happens to be fiscally conservative. I call things like I see them, regardless of party affiliation. I always have and I always will.

Just as Alan Grayson was bad for the body politic (IMO) so is Sasrah Palin (IMO). However, for most liberals or Democrats to blame certain ‘voices’ or certain ‘vitriolic rhetoric’ on the GOP, Tea Party and certain media outlets, and to ascribe said rhetoric on them by blaming them for what Mr. Loughner did, is proposterous.

Actually, I’m very comforted by the overwhelming response from reasoned people across the political spectrum by their recent op-eds, essays and comments debunking the aforementioned claims that many Democrats have politically tossed about like cheap confetti.

My 2011 pledge is to continue never using metaphors that could be construed as inciting violence. I haven’t yet; however, it’s gonna be difficult given Stephen’s penchant for circular logic ;)

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 10, 2011 7:45 PM
Comment #316736

d.a.n. & Marysdude

I have nothing against atheists, although I disagree with their belief. I remember (not the details) about the Christian and the atheist who frequently debated. Then the Christian was dying and he asked to see the atheists one last time. The atheist was flattered but confused. “Why did you ask to see me and not others,” he asked. “Well,” the Christian replied, “I expect to meet my other friends again, but this is the last time I will ever see you.”

My point in bringing it up (along with the other characteristics) is that the shooter did not fit the conservative profile. And do you really believe that if this guy was a Christian that it would not be mentioned over and over and over? He was NOT a conservative, and yet that seems to be brought up a lot.

Posted by: C&J at January 10, 2011 7:46 PM
Comment #316737
It does sound bad when those on the right take it out of context and misquote it but not nearly as bad when it is in context and quoted correctly.
Posted by: j2t2 at January 10, 2011 06:26 PM


It amazes me how you can justify the words when a Democratic says them but maliciously read into the comments of a Republican a most serious threat. Why don’t you say in your next comment that Sharon Angle’s comment was “not nearly as bad when it is in context and quoted correctly”.

I’m looking forward to your next comment, j2t2.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2011 8:03 PM
Comment #316738

C&J,

First, whether you are aware of it or not, you are associating atheism with liberalism. This may or may not be an accurate association. Do you have some numbers to back this up?

Second, same thing with smoking pot. Links? References? I know plenty of conservatives as I live in the south. Many smoke dope.

I do not ‘believe’ in a conscience supreme being. YOU would classify me as an atheist I suppose, but understand that is YOUR label for me. I don’t feel I have to take a position on the idea that there is such a being existent. I DO, however, understand, that in many segments of our society, being labeled an atheist is not far removed from baby-killer, miscreant, child-molester, etc. Thanks for letting us know how you feel.

Lastly, the argument is not that the shooter was a conservative or liberal. This event just begs for us to examine how we view and label our political opponents. We on the left get the message from the right. You see us as immoral, evil, America-hating, socialists, fascists, pinheads, weak-livered, God hating vermin worthy of being taken out by violence. You can deny it, but you can’t erase the rhetoric that we hear.

Now, I’m sure you have similar complaints about how liberals view and label conservatives. You would deny holding the views that I complained of and I’m certain I would deny many of the complaints which you have made regarding how liberals paint conservatives.

The point is we need to stop. Show us the websites and writings of current political liberals extolling violent remedies against its conservative foes. I will go on record condemning them and the language/act.

Posted by: LibRick at January 10, 2011 8:13 PM
Comment #316739

How to Eliminate ‘Inflammatory Right-Wing Rhetoric’


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2011 8:29 PM
Comment #316740

LibRick

I know that many, probably a majority of liberals are Christians. But I also know that Christians are associated with tea party and conservatives. Not all conservatives are Christians and not all conservatives are Christians, of course.

On this blog, there is the frequent attempt to identify conservatives with Christianity and there is a fairly consistent level of hostility toward both among some liberals on this blog. Therefore, the fact that this guy is a atheist is significant for many on this blog.

You can label yourself as you wish. If you are right about the Supreme Being, it will cause you no grief. But this shooter labeled himself as an atheist. You don’t have to associate yourself with him.

Re labels - the liberal establishment started the labels. Before the victims even got to the hospital, liberal pinhead such as Paul Krugman were trying to make political points from their suffering. The NYT wrote a really stupid editorial about it. Where is their shame. When Major Nidal killed more than a dozen people while shouting allah akbar, the NYT and others told us not to jump to conclusions…well.

You ask about the hate. What greater hate is there than to claim that a president started a war to make money? How about the attacks on Bristol Palin? And Paul Krugman trying to pin the blame on Republicans is the ultimate in hate. So if you want to stop, talk to Kos and Krugman. If they would stop lying, we would not have to respond.

Also show me the mainstream conservative incitement to violence. As I mentioned, Kos talked about targeting. It is a common metaphor. I am watching O’Reilly Factor right now. I have never heard him incite violence.

When they made that movie about the assassination of Bush, did you object? When they accused him of starting a war to profit, did you demur? This is hatred of the worst kind.

But close to the worst hatred is this blood libel against conservatives re this shooting. Shame on them.

Posted by: C&J at January 10, 2011 8:39 PM
Comment #316741

d.a.n.:

you want to put them in jail, eh?

Good luck with that.
Threatening people with incarceration is not responsible rhetoric either, is it?

It’s responsible rhetoric when it truly applies, yes. Like how people can go to jail for reckless or malicious speech by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I think it would be a good idea for people like Beck or Palin or O’Reilly to have to do a spell in the slammer every time they incite one of their followers to commit an act of violence due to something reckless or malicious they said in the media. Something like this incident seems like a pretty good example.

When mouthpieces on the right have made a constant refrain out of saying that people on the left aren’t “real Americans” or “Unamerican” that we’re “baby killers”, “nazi’s’ and “socialists” that are “dangerous and want to destroy the country” and deserve “second amendment remedies” and “need to be taken out” etc., etc., I do think they should be held at least partially responsible for inciting violence when that is the outcome of their over-the-top rhetoric.

Of course, it appears that this may not actually apply in this particular case. Yet, we should all acknowledge that it easily could have, since so many of the politicians (like Giffords) that Palin trained her bullseyes on have subsequently received death threats afterward.

So yes, when it applies, I think such rhetoric seems warranted and correct in my view.

PS. to C&J,
Wow. I can’t believe you’re making so many ridiculous comments. And when it comes to defending extreme rightwing rhetoric I see you’ve chosen to take the “don’t retreat just reload” position too!

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2011 9:14 PM
Comment #316742

Weary Willie,
“Do you mean like getting up in front of the nation and stating the war is lost?”

No because it is a personal opinion; however, to make that statement and calling for action against our Elected Officials other than calling for their impeachment or voting them out of office IMHO can be considered treason.

KAP,
Calling a person a Nut JOB no matter which side of the political spectrum they come from is a cop out. For why I can remember those who to this date will defend the actions of Kent State, I wonder how many Americans today would remain silient if President Bush or Obama was to order such actions be taken.

No, I cannot and do not blame the extreme political points of view of others; however, unless or until they are willing to accept the extreme political point of view from the center than any call for violence against Americas’ Citizens or Elected Officials IMHO is treason.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 10, 2011 9:19 PM
Comment #316743
  • C&J wrote: He [Jared Lee Loughner] is an ardent atheist.
  • C&J wrote: I think … atheists are delusional;
  • C&J wrote: His [Jared Lee Loughner] atheism, … characteristics certainly rule out his being a conservative.
  • C&J wrote: We all agree that he [Jared Lee Loughner] evidently was an atheist,
  • C&J wrote: I do not believe that the characteristics that the shooter shared with many radical leftist commentators (i.e. atheism, …
  • C&J wrote: Let’s consider the shooter. He [Jared Lee Loughner] is evidently an atheist, …
  • C&J wrote: and in fact [Jared Lee Loughner] has characteristics not associated with conservatives, such as being an atheists, burning flags …
  • C&J wrote: My point in bringing it up [atheism] (along with the other characteristics) is that the shooter did not fit the conservative profile. And do you really believe that if this guy was a Christian that it would not be mentioned over and over and over? He was NOT a conservative, and yet that seems to be brought up a lot.
  • C&J wrote: I have nothing against atheists, although I disagree with their belief.
  • C&J wrote: I remember (not the details) about the Christian and the atheist who frequently debated. Then the Christian was dying and he asked to see the atheists one last time. The atheist was flattered but confused. “Why did you ask to see me and not others,” he asked. “Well,” the Christian replied, “I expect to meet my other friends again, but this is the last time I will ever see you.”
HHHMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm … that’s all very interesting, indeed !?!

I’m not sure what to say about that, except to say that it speaks for itself, and it speaks volumes.

You also seem to be trying (not so subtly) to lump atheists in with Jared Lee Lougher, as if atheists must be similar in some way?

So, how do you know atheists are (as you wrote above) “delusional”, and you’re not ?
Can you offer anything, or any shred of evidence to prove atheists are “delusional” ?
And what about Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Scientologists, Shintoists, Taoists, Shikhs, Agnostics, Baha’ists, Candomblists, Santerialists, Zoroastrianists, Rastafarists, Jainismists, Spiritualists, Mormons, Pagans, Unitarianists, etc., etc., etc. (too many to all list here)?

Are they all “delusional” too ?
Or only slightly less “delusional” than atheists?
What makes you think you know better than all of the others ?
What proof do you have that atheists got it wrong?
Seriously, where is your proof, and/or what is your rationale to think you know better ?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2011 9:31 PM
Comment #316744

Henry, What pray tell are you talking about? Anyone who kills for the sack of killing no matter if it is politically motivated or not IMO is NUTS. IMO the HATE retoric from both side needs to tone down. Where do you get treason from?

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 9:45 PM
Comment #316746

Adrienne

I am defending neither right wing nor left wing hate speech. I am reacting to the instinctive bigotry of the left. With absolutely no evidence, like Paul Krugman (an economist of some renown, who is out of his element the moment he leaves the classroom) linked the shooting to the tea party. Now when it is clear that the shooter has no connections with any conservative groups, probably doesn’t even watch the news and has a profile very much at odds with a conservative, but more like a liberal, you guys keep up the drumbeat.

If you want to talk about hate speech, good. You and others spread a lot about George Bush. When Cheney had a heart attack, some liberals said they hoped he would die. There is a lot. I have never engaged in hate speech and don’t support it, but that is a different subject.

This shooter was evidently not influenced either by hate speech on the right or hate speech from the left. He was just nuts. So don’t conflate the two subjects.

Your hate speech against Palin and O’Reilly, BTW, shows the kind of things we are talking about. What you are doing is blood libel. Since the shooter was NOT inspired by anything they might have said, you are just making up this hatred. Shame on you for this.

Henry

The guy is nuts. Perhaps if you believe he is sane, it says more about you than it does about him. I will not say that he was inspired by left wing hate speech, however.

d.a.n.

Yes, I speak for myself. The guy claims to be an atheist. Sorry if that bothers you. I disagree with atheist beliefs. I told a joke. I think it is a good joke. If you don’t believe it is true, it should not bother you at all, since it implies nothing in this world at all.

I really don’t think you have any reason to by upset. You can do that thing you do and cut and paste all you want. I have to keep on repeating the same things because others keep on making the same points that I need to debunk.

If you want to help with your extraordinary abilities to cut, paste and take out of context, be my guest. Your extrapolations, however, are just silly. I don’t feel the need to respond to them. You can cut and paste some of what I wrote here, take it out of context and make whatever response you find most in line with your preconceived notions.

Posted by: C&J at January 10, 2011 10:20 PM
Comment #316747
d.a.n wrote wrote: you want to put them in jail, eh? Good luck with that. Threatening people with incarceration is not responsible rhetoric either, is it?
Adrienne wrote: It’s responsible rhetoric when it truly applies, yes. Like how people can go to jail for reckless or malicious speech by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.
The cause-and-effect link of yelling “fire” in a theatre is obvious.

The link between irresponsible rhetoric and crimes is not obvious, because mentally unstable people will find any excuse for what they do.

Adrienne wrote: I think it would be a good idea for people like Beck or Palin or O’Reilly to have to do a spell in the slammer every time they incite one of their followers to commit an act of violence due to something reckless or malicious they said in the media.
Then, again, based on your own logic, Barack Obama and many other people will have to spend time in jail too, if any of this is true:
  • “Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother” – Barack Obama
  • “Bring it on”- Barack Obama
  • “Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans” – Barack Obama
  • “I want all Americans to get in each others faces! – Barack Obama
  • “You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Barack Obama (source: www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html)
  • “Republicans are our enemies” – Barack Obama
  • “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” - Barack Obama
  • “Hit Back Twice As Hard” - Barack Obama
  • “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“ - Barack Obama
  • “… hand to hand combat” - Barack Obama
  • “It’s time to Fight for it.” - Barack Obama
  • “Punish your enemies.” - Barack Obama
  • “I’m itching for a fight.” - Barack Obama
Adrienne wrote: Something like this incident seems like a pretty good example.
The 1st sentence of the 6th paragraph of the article you linked-to states:
  • “It’s not fair to blame Beck for violence committed by people who watch his show.”
Adrienne wrote: When mouthpieces on the right have made a constant refrain out of saying that people on the left …
Do you really believe it’s one-sided (i.e. even mostly only one-sided from the right or left)?

It wouldn’t be difficult to find numerous, possibly thousands of articles in which many on BOTH the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY engage in irresponsible rhetoric.

Adrienne wrote: When mouthpieces on the right have made a constant refrain out of saying that people on the left aren’t “real Americans” or “Unamerican” that we’re “baby killers”, “nazi’s’ and “socialists” that are “dangerous and want to destroy the country” and deserve “second amendment remedies” and “need to be taken out” etc., etc., I do think they should be held at least partially responsible for inciting violence when that is the outcome of their over-the-top rhetoric.
And how would you characterize Barack Obama’s statements above?
Adrienne wrote: So yes, when it applies, I think such rhetoric seems warranted and correct in my view.
Again, based on your own logic, Barack Obama and many other people will have to spend time in jail too, No?

Sure, irresponsible rhetoric should be discouraged.
And obvious inciting riots and violence is already illegal.
But some of this stuff is borderline, and as the author of the article you provided a hyperlink to already said, “It’s not fair to blame Beck for violence committed by people who watch his show.”, because mentally unstable people are going to find any reason they can to justify their actions.
Mentally unstable people are going to twist and distort anything they want to justify their actions.

Also, if we start incarcerating everyone for using anything that sounds even remotely irresponsible, we’ll all be in jail before too long.
Pencilz don’t misppel wordz, spoons don’t make people fat, and guns don’t kill people.
Some people do those things, and often, they are mentally unstable, and/or have been in-and-out of jail and prison for a history of crimes (including violent crimes).

So, whose going to determine what is irresponsible rhetoric?
Do you see how ridiculously hopeless any attempt to determine what is unacceptable would be?
It would be a death knell for free speech, as many abuse the it to limit free speech.
And that is why what you are suggesting is not likely to happen.

Adrienne wrote: PS. to C&J, Wow. I can’t believe you’re making so many ridiculous comments.
On that, we agree.

At any rate, such blind partisan loyalties as demonstrated in this thread (and countless others) explains why corrupt incumbent politicians in BOTH the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY are able to retain their cu$hy, coveted seats of power, and the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2011 10:21 PM
Comment #316748
C&J wrote: d.a.n. Yes, I speak for myself.
And proud of it too, eh?

The issue is that your numerous comments are (not so subtly) repeatedly lumping atheists in with Jared Lee Lougher, as if atheists must be similar in some way?

  • C&J wrote: He [Jared Lee Loughner] is an ardent atheist.
  • C&J wrote: I think … atheists are delusional;
  • C&J wrote: His [Jared Lee Loughner] atheism, … characteristics certainly rule out his being a conservative.
  • C&J wrote: We all agree that he [Jared Lee Loughner] evidently was an atheist,
  • C&J wrote: I do not believe that the characteristics that the shooter shared with many radical leftist commentators (i.e. atheism, …
  • C&J wrote: Let’s consider the shooter. He [Jared Lee Loughner] is evidently an atheist, …
  • C&J wrote: and in fact [Jared Lee Loughner] has characteristics not associated with conservatives, such as being an atheists, burning flags …
  • C&J wrote: My point in bringing it up [atheism] (along with the other characteristics) is that the shooter did not fit the conservative profile. And do you really believe that if this guy was a Christian that it would not be mentioned over and over and over? He was NOT a conservative, and yet that seems to be brought up a lot.
  • C&J wrote: I have nothing against atheists, although I disagree with their belief.
  • C&J wrote: I remember (not the details) about the Christian and the atheist who frequently debated. Then the Christian was dying and he asked to see the atheists one last time. The atheist was flattered but confused. “Why did you ask to see me and not others,” he asked. “Well,” the Christian replied, “I expect to meet my other friends again, but this is the last time I will ever see you.”
  • C&J wrote: I disagree with atheist beliefs.

You also stated that “I think … atheists are delusional

Of course, you are entitled to believe whatever you like as long as it doesn’t violate others rights, but we’re curious.
How do you know atheists are (as you wrote above) “delusional”, and you’re not ?
If you’re so certain of it, it shouldn’t be a difficult question to answer, eh?
Can you offer anything, or any shred of evidence to prove atheists are “delusional” ?
And what about Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Scientologists, Shintoists, Taoists, Shikhs, Agnostics, Baha’ists, Candomblists, Santerialists, Zoroastrianists, Rastafarists, Jainismists, Spiritualists, Mormons, Pagans, Unitarianists, etc., etc., etc. (too many to all list here)?
Are they all “delusional” too ?
Or only slightly less “delusional” than atheists?

  • C&J wrote: The guy claims to be an atheist. Sorry if that bothers you.
What makes you think that bothers me?
  • C&J wrote: I disagree with atheist beliefs.
Yes, you keep writing that, but why?
  • C&J wrote: I told a joke. I think it is a good joke.
Well, of course, you are entitled to believe whatever you like.
  • C&J wrote: If you don’t believe it is true, it should not bother you at all, since it implies nothing in this world at all.
I’m agnostic, so I don’t claim to know.

You do. So, how do you know atheists are (as you wrote above) “delusional”, and you’re not ?
If you’re so certain of it, it shouldn’t be a difficult question to answer, eh?

  • C&J wrote: I really don’t think you have any reason to by upset.
Who said I was upset?

I’m merely curious to see how deep you’re going to dig that hole you’re in.

  • C&J wrote: You can do that thing you do and cut and paste all you want.
You like that, eh?

The funny thing is, a fool can only make a fool of themself, and they don’t need others’ help.
Your comments speak for themself, and the speak volumes.

  • C&J wrote: I have to keep on repeating the same things because others keep on making the same points that I need to debunk.
Nosense. Again, your bigoted comments reveal what “points” you’re really trying to make all too well.
  • C&J wrote: If you want to help with your extraordinary abilities to cut, paste and take out of context, be my guest.
Funny!

When people don’t like the way their own comments are interpreted, they always claim their comments were taken out of context.

  • C&J wrote: Your extrapolations, however, are just silly.
You wish. It’s too late now. Your comments will remain here for a long, long time.
  • C&J wrote: I don’t feel the need to respond to them.
But you continue to do just that.

And that is most likely because your numerous comments revealed a deep-seated religious bigotry?

  • C&J wrote: You can cut and paste some of what I wrote here, take it out of context and make whatever response you find most in line with your preconceived notions.
Again, that’s funny!

When people don’t like the way their own comments are interpreted, they always claim their comments were taken out of context.

  • C&J wrote: You can cut and paste some of what I wrote here, take it out of context and make whatever response you find most in line with your preconceived notions.
Preconceived notions?

How would you like your comments to be interpreted?
How would you like this to be interpreted

C&J wrote: I think … atheists are delusional

How was that taken out of context such that the meaning or intended interpretation was changed?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2011 10:57 PM
Comment #316752

A parting shot on the subject.

According to Tucson Police Department records, by December 2010, the city — which is located 60 miles north of the Mexican border — experienced 51 murders by the use of guns. Washington police records, meanwhile, recorded 131 homicides in 2010, nearly three times the Tucson rate.

Who has the gun problem?

Posted by: tom humes at January 10, 2011 11:24 PM
Comment #316753

KAP,
You said “Anyone who kills for the sack of killing no matter if it is politically motivated or not IMO is NUTS” Yet, do you not defend our troops who are following orders or the person who kills in defense of their family?

No, having grown up understanding why every Human is entitled to their personal beliefs and opinions I have no problem with people who believe America was wrong to go off the gold system even if they are to ignorant or young to understand whay and why the President of the United States of America and Congress took such actions in the 70’s.

However, facing an enemy aboard who believes Americas’ Government is wrong in following the directions they were given in the 1970’s and wishes to harm our Citizens and Elected Officials IMHO makes ANYONE within our borders who wish to do the same carrying out an act of treason.

C&J,
Why it is easier to call the person nuts, the fact he planned and carried out the act even to the point where he was aware of the right and wrong of his actions does not make him insane.

For why I will defend his right to totally disagree with thw way Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders take care of the Business of We the People even though I think he is wrong; however, I cannot stand for his use of violence even as an Anti-Authoritarian.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 10, 2011 11:37 PM
Comment #316754

Henry, Get off the KOOL AID. Nobody is suggesting that are troops are killing for the sake of killing or someone who kills in selfdefence or aiding others who are threatened with bodily harm. The guy was insane even the liberal media agrees with that point. You are entitled to your opinion and I mine, I think the guy is NUTS.

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2011 11:52 PM
Comment #316756

KAP,
You can be nuts, but as of 1980 something in the eyes of the Law he is sane by his own actions. So it is not Kool Aid that I am drinking.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 11, 2011 12:19 AM
Comment #316757

Henry, WHATEVER!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 12:27 AM
Comment #316758

C&J,

You keep talking about the shooter as if he is the link to something important. Diversion.

The shooter is not the link here, nor is your ridiculous misdirection. The atmosphere of hate is the link we’ve been discussing.

That is why I made light of your tilt at the windmill of atheism. You just don’t get it (or don’t want to get it). Political discourse in America is all too shrill, hate filled, and violence encouraging. If you continue to be in denial that the right is guilty of a higher degree of it, I’m afraid it may never get toned down. The ‘voice’ is from the right. Any such mouthings from the left, have little ‘voice’. If that’s the world you wish to live in…so be it. But, it is not necessary to live there, if someone of persuasion would begin the process of condemnation.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 6:44 AM
Comment #316759

Dan-
I’ve been trying to keep clear of you to avoid pointless arguments, but if you keep haranguing the other commenters like you have been, I will be sending your comments to the recycle bin. You know I will do this, you will get no other warning.

Calm down.

C&J-
I have BEEN admitting that for quite sometime. Hell, the title of my post and the aim of its content implicitly admit that possibility.

It’s not hate to point out when somebody is acting like a moron. When Sarah Palin is befuddled even by a softball interview by Katie Couric, that’s a situation where you’re better off admitting she’s not up to your standards for intelligence, rather than coddling her by saying Katie was being unfair. And Bush? Look back. My criticisms have never been about personal hatred of the man. If I strongly dislike him, it’s because of the consistent failure of his policies.

We still live with the terrible consequences of his misrule, and worse yet, your party fights to preserve that bad policy. Should we feel like tiptoeing through the tulips? You’re so busy trying to punish the liberals for hating Bush that you won’t even sit down and consider that at its base, people’s dislike of him has most to do with what he failed to do, having been given the chance to lead.

Bush had a 90% approval rating at one point. He didn’t lose it because somebody said bad things about him. He lost it, ended up with terrible lows because he was objectively bad at his job.

Obama, on the other hand has to deal with the fierce hatred of the right from the start, and faced with a crisis of epic proportions, does the Right seek unity, does it hold back on its criticism to let him be the leader? No, they filibuster him from the start, unafraid that they might be accused of putting their own politics ahead of the welfare of the country.

I had hoped that your side would at least recognize that it was time to compromise, to admit that they weren’t going to utterly get their way. Instead, you’ve fought any kind of change from your policy from day one. Obama has always been willing to make deals, always been willing to engage the other side. He was never going to be a doormat, though.

As for businessmen getting shot, I have never read or heard a liberal pundit or host suggesting that some sort of revolution or some “second amendment remedy” to them. Not with Enron, not with the Housing collapse, not with the crash of 2008, not with the ongoing hijinks in the mortgage industry or the financial sector.

So don’t equate Liberal’s behavior with that of the right. We haven’t been fomenting violence against the business community. The Right, however, has not been so judicious in its language towards government and liberals.

KAP-
It’s good that you’re writing in capitals. I couldn’t hear you from this side of the screen.

Seriously, there is a difference between essentially telling an audience that you won’t let the Republican candidate get the upper hand in the debate, that you’ll bring the stronger skills and rhetoric, and bringing up the possibility that people might want to use firearms to resist the enforcement of this nation’s laws.

This isn’t about what they literally said. This is about what they said meant, and what it was understood to mean. A second Amendment remedy, by definition, has something to do with real weapons, rather than figurative ones. Sharron Angle wasn’t saying that people were going to bring stronger skills and rhetoric to a debate if Congress wasn’t stopped. She was saying they were going to get out their guns.

This precise failure to make distinctions between speech that obviously means no harm to the Republicans, and speech that implies that serious actual harm could come to Democrats is what frustrates me about the response of the right to all this.

There is a difference. And until you recognize that, you will be the first suspects anytime a Democrat gets shot, beat up, or assaulted at a political rally, or a congressional office. Fact of the matter is, your people are responsible for their own problems in reputation. It’s like a juvenile delinquent being angry that the police come by to ask him about a convenience store being robbed.

Z-
Wake me up when Obama actually talks about using guns to resist Right Wing policies.

So easy to try and whip up hatred against Democrats, so hard to actually get the point that there is a difference between talking about fights on a campaign trail, and second amendment remedies. One is easily understood by those not looking for material for spin to mean a figurative matchup. The other can only be reasonably understood to be remedies involving real weapons.

Unless and until you recognize the substance of that distinction, then you more or less have landed on the wrong side of this argument to avoid future distinctions. Until you recognize that appealing to the prospect of real political violence is wrong, you will blamed for it first and foremost, because your people are talking about inflicting precisely that on the Democrats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2011 7:57 AM
Comment #316765

Another side to this coin that you might actually like to consider:

1. You contend that the rhetoric on the right is MUCH worse than the rhetoric on the left. (we will pretend for a second to accept that premise…)

2. Rhetoric can and will incite violence from the less stable in any group. (again, a premise I don’t actually agree with, but will concede for the sake of the illustration)

Now that the foundation is established and understood, here is the kicker. There are more examples directly linked to the democratic party and liberal agenda than anyone in this entire thread has provided that actually showed a conservative acting out violence. (only D.A.N. has provided any concrete example of conservative rhetoric leading to violence, and that was ONE example).

So, even though the right talks harsher, talks louder, and worries all of you to death…it is the left that has a problem with taking things a step too far into violence. Is that because as a party you have a higher percentage of the “unstable” individuals that rhetoric effects so negatively? Or is it that some of the contentions above might actually be false, as the conservatives have contended all along!

Posted by: adam at January 11, 2011 10:46 AM
Comment #316766
BECK: Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out — is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, “Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,” and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, “Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.” And you know, well, I’m not sure.

I did not have to look far. I fed ‘beck’ and ‘threats’ into my search engine. I’m pretty sure I could do the same with Hannity, O’Reiley, Coulter, Palin, Angle, Alexander, Sessions, Perry, etc. etc. etc.

The right has the ‘voice’ and only the right can tone it down. Once the rhetoric is under control on the right, the left will become silent by absence of the ‘voice’ to rebound off of.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 10:49 AM
Comment #316768

Stephen, You still haven’t admitted your side is just as guilty of Hate retoric as the other. Like I said “How soon you forget the Bush administration and all the venom spewed by the left.” So I repeat, Your side is just as guilty as the other.

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 11:18 AM
Comment #316770

So, no matter how you spin it, it was said by Obama.
Posted by: Z at January 10, 2011 06:45 PM


It amazes me how you can justify the words when a Democratic says them but maliciously read into the comments of a Republican a most serious threat. Why don’t you say in your next comment that Sharon Angle’s comment was “not nearly as bad when it is in context and quoted correctly”.

I’m looking forward to your next comment, j2t2.
Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2011 08:03 PM

My apologiesn never should have trusted McCain’s spokesman to right? Perhaps Obama said what was reported but what McCains spokesman said left no doubt the context was a political fight. How you guys can confuse the difference between a political knife fight and a knife fight is amazing when it benefits you.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 11, 2011 11:28 AM
Comment #316771

Adam,

Your link provide only two instances of actual violence possibly connected to left wing rhetoric. In one of the two, the only evidence was a “fuck the rich” spray painting at the scene. A third instance cited in the link was a fake bomb.

In contrast, you might want to review the list of nineteen clear instances of extreme violence clearly related to the right wing: http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/terror-arizona-just-another-isolated

Posted by: Rich at January 11, 2011 11:58 AM
Comment #316773

Rich,

I was so impressed with that research done by Crooks and Liars, that I thought it worthwhile to copy it to WB:

— July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how “liberals” are “destroying America,” walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others. — October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama. — December 2008: A pair of “Patriot” movement radicals — the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted “to attack the political infrastructure” — threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime. — December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear “dirty bomb” in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb. — January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center. — February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material. — April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial. — April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama’s purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police. — May 2009: A “sovereign citizen” named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. — June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard. — February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one “domestic terrorism” too.) — March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war. — March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead. — May 2010: A “sovereign citizen” from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse. — May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb. — May 2010: Two “sovereign citizens” named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed. — July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded. — September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year—old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the “Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.

The rhetoric of violence breeds…well, duh…violence. There are consequences to ‘winning’. In the end we all have to live with those consequences. Tone down the right, and the left echo will cease.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 12:54 PM
Comment #316774

tom humes,

This is not a 2nd Amendment fight yet. There will be mouthings about it, but the SCOTUS has spoken on that subject. For the guns in D.C., nearly all the weapons currently in that city have been transported there from the second most gun liberal state, Georgia. They go right up I95 by the trunk load. Very similar to the way truck loads of weapons go South into Mexico, from the U.S. Good trade goods for drugs in both instances.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 1:04 PM
Comment #316776

KAP-
I still haven’t said what you wanted me to say?

I’m not going to draw a false equivalence just to please you. I don’t see these kinds of threats as a rule, coming from Democrats. I don’t see the left blogosphere cheering it on.

Adam-
You want everybody to admit they have no right to criticize you or your party for what you have been saying or doing.

Rather a tall order. If you can’t stand criticism, politics isn’t a very friendly field.

I think there’s a good case to be made that the Democrats are more moderated in their rhetoric and their political culture.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2011 2:08 PM
Comment #316777

Ok Stephen I see now, those on the left such as yourself are never wrong or do no wrong, or say things that may be taken literaly, your parties policies are the best and no one should criticize them. Stay in your denial Stephen.

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 2:26 PM
Comment #316778

d.a.n.:

The cause-and-effect link of yelling “fire” in a theatre is obvious.

The link between irresponsible rhetoric and crimes is not obvious,

Well, I couldn’t disagree more. I realize you constantly enjoy trying to make all these false equivalencies between both sides of the political aisle, but I think most people have understood that over the past thirty-plus years that the toxic political atmosphere that has poisoned this country has come overwhelmingly from the Right.

Case in point: Newt Gingrich releasing a memo back in the 1990’s that instructed the GOP on how to use the worst words they could think of to define and demonize liberals. He instructed them to: “Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals, and their party.”

I know how fond you are of lists, so here it is in full:

decay… failure (fail)… collapse(ing)… deeper… crisis… urgent(cy)… destructive… destroy… sick… pathetic… lie… liberal… they/them… unionized bureaucracy… “compassion” is not enough… betray… consequences… limit(s)… shallow… traitors… sensationalists…

endanger… coercion… hypocrisy… radical… threaten… devour… waste… corruption… incompetent… permissive attitudes… destructive… impose… self-serving… greed… ideological… insecure… anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs… pessimistic… excuses… intolerant…

stagnation… welfare… corrupt… selfish… insensitive… status quo… mandate(s)… taxes… spend(ing)… shame… disgrace… punish (poor…)… bizarre… cynicism… cheat… steal… abuse of power… machine… bosses… obsolete… criminal rights… red tape… patronage

You want to talk equivalence between right and left? Sorry, but the left never got around to making up an official smear list to apply to their opponents. And the sad fact is, since that time the list of toxic hate-filled rightwing rhetoric has escalated exponentially.

Indeed, it is GLARINGLY obvious that rightwing politicians and their media mouthpieces repeatedly foment hatred against the politicians, people, and causes of the left. It’s also glaringly obvious that the Fox News Channel was designed specifically to rile up conservatives — and most especially the gullible, slow witted, and mentally unstable among them.

This is why Roger Ailes had to come out after the shooting rampage in Tuscon to say:”

I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that.

The “other side”? Nice how Ailes spells it out for everyone there. Needs to take down that “Fair and Balanced” slogan they use now, eh?

The fact of the matter is, you’d have to be willfully wearing blinders not to recognize that there is a direct link between over-the-top rightwing Fox News rhetoric and deadly violence.

Anyone paying attention knew damn well that Operation Rescue putting up posters with bullseyes on the faces of doctors who perform abortions while Bill O’Reilly repeatedly referred to Dr. George Tiller as “Tiller the Baby Killer” (and telling people where he lived and worked) was going to get Dr. Tiller killed eventually.
After getting shot up once and managing to live, Tiller was ultimately shot again, directly in the face, in the lobby of his church. This doctor who had saved the lives of countless women in need died at the hands of an anti-abortion nutcase who had been riled up for years on end by violent hate-filled rightwing rhetoric.

Or look at what Jim David Adkisson who shot two people to death and wounded of six others at a Tennessee Unitarian Universalist church in 2008 had to say:

Adkisson: “This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate and House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg’s book. I’d like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I knew these people were inaccessible to me. I couldn’t get to the generals and high-ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chicken (expletive) liberals that vote in these traitorous people.”

The Knoxville News Sentinel reported that they:

“seized three books from Adkisson’s home, including ‘The O’Reilly Factor,’ by television commentator Bill O’Reilly; ‘Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,’ by radio personality Michael Savage; and ‘Let Freedom Ring,’ by political pundit Sean Hannity.”

Or take Pittsburgh shooter Richard Poplawski who murdered three Pittsburgh cops in a shootout in 2009. Media Matters interviewed this killer’s best friend:

“Rich, like myself, loved Glenn Beck,” Poplawski’s best friend Eddie Perkovic told me during a long interview in his narrow rowhouse on the steep hill running down to the Allegheny. (Perkovic had a lot of time — he was wearing an ankle bracelet for house arrest because of an unrelated case.) Perkovic and his mom — who also had a close relationship with the accused cop-killer, still awaiting trial — told me that for months Poplawski had been obsessed with an idea — frequently discussed by Beck, including in ads for his sponsor Food Insurance — of the need to stockpile food and even toilet paper for a societal breakdown. Poplawski was also convinced that paper money would become worthless — another claim given credence by the Fox News Channel host, particularly in close connection with his frequent shilling for the now-under-investigation gold-coin peddler Goldline International.

And there was another idea that not only worried Poplawski but which Perkovic and his mom still swore by in January 2010 — despite widespread debunkings in the mainstream media — that the government had established a gulag of what Perkovic called “Guantanamo camps” here in the United States, for the purpose of arresting and detaining law-abiding Americans. This was the idea that Beck famously declared on FNC on March 3, 2009, or one month and one day before the shootings, that “I can’t debunk.” Poplawski downloaded to the Web a video of Beck glibly discussing the possibility of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, abusing its powers with a U.S. Congressman, Ron Paul of Texas. Poplawski’s mother later said in a sworn statement that her son “liked police when they were not curtailing his constitutional rights.” By then, Officers Eric Guy Kelly, Stephen Mayhle and Paul Sciullo II were already dead.

And you know that nutcase, Byron Williams who I linked to in my last email? Media Matters did an interview with him too:

Back at the Santa Rita Jail, Byron again weighs in on Beck. “You know, I’ll tell you,” he says, “Beck is gonna deny everything about violent approach and deny everything about conspiracies, but he’ll give you every reason to believe it. He’s protecting himself, and you can’t blame him for that. So, I understand what he’s doing.”

I ask Byron if he thinks Beck has a political movement. After all, I say, hundreds of thousands of people came out to hear him speak at his “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, D.C.

“I think so,” says Byron. “If there’s hundreds of thousands of us, yes. Yeah, it’s coming down to the line, you know, and these controllers are not backing off. They want total control, and they’re gonna try to get it. And more and more people are waking up.”

I ask Byron, are you a revolutionary, a criminal, a terrorist, a patriot?

“I’m a revolutionary,” he responds. “I believe in the Constitution. I do not like crime.”

“You have to have a society that is pure and clean,” he says. “And you have to keep it that way. We have to go back to our original principles.”

Byron tells me his name came up on Beck’s show.

Yeah, I heard that, I say.

Byron says: “Yeah, I didn’t know it went that far. I thought maybe, OK, I hit the local news, that’s great. You know, not something I really wanted to happen. But I didn’t know it all went all the way across the country. They were trying to — I guess — it wasn’t good, you know? They were trying to say that it was a thing that now that the left would use it against us, right? And an act of violence.”

He continues.

“And I’d say, well, you know, that’s the thing. It’s that anything you do is going to be considered promoting terror attacks or promoting violence. So now they’ve got Beck labeled as this guy that is trying to incite violence. And what I say is that if the truth incites violence, it means that we’ve been living too long in the lies.

“Because it’s gonna be too many — it’s gonna be more and more people that are, you know — when you become unemployed, desperate, you can no longer pay your bills, when your society has come to a standstill, and cannot grow anymore, you’re becoming socialized, everything, you know — companies are moving overseas, what do you think is gonna happen? You know, for crying out loud. It’s gonna get worse. And more and more people are gonna get desperate.”

Also from Media Matters following the Williams shooting in Oakland:

Rich Roberts is public information officer for the International Union of Police Associations, which represents about 500 local police unions.

Noting it was his personal opinion, he said Beck “stirs people up and not in a good way. He is a source of problems. I have to watch Beck because I don’t have a choice, I have to stay in touch with what is going on.”
Roberts said Beck’s rhetoric is a dangerous thing because it can drive people to violence.

“The Becks of the world are people who are venting their opinions and it is inflammatory, it generates a lot of emotion and generates in some people overreaction that apparently happened in the California case,” Roberts said. “Inflammatory speech has a tendency to trigger those kinds of emotions.”

Roberts added about Beck: “He is self-serving and has no interest in improving, informing or educating.”

Reminds me a lot of the comments that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik just made after the shooting rampage in Arizona:

If you are in law enforcement and you are not a right winger, you will get all kinds of heat from the right wing nuts.
“I think many people have held for a long time, and many people are very upset with what’s going on in America, that we have become a very angry country. Part of it very ugly. And that even though we have free speech in this country, constantly, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, making the people angry at government, public officials, elected officials and so forth, may benefit some party. But I think those people have to consider that they may have some responsibility when incidents like this occur and may occur in the future,”
“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.”
“There are a whole lot of people in this country who are very angry about the politics of people like Gabrielle. There was a lot of vitriolic statements made night and day on radio and TV about her support of health care, about her support of some of the other things, and some of the vitriol got …. a lot of people agitated.”

The reason Sheriff Dupnik is saying these things (much to the outrage of people on the right) is because Representative Gifford and other Democratic Representatives in Arizona who had appeared on Sarah Palin’s Don’t Retreat, Re-load! Bullseye map had been receiving numerous death threats. As had Judge Roll, he had received numerous death threats over his rulings on immigration issues — and now he’s dead.

The followers of the hate-filled rightwing mouthpieces aren’t merely a few lone nuts like the ones I’ve listed above either. As this video segment demonstrates, there is in fact an entire violent rightwing movement of violence and intimidation going on in this country:

IntimiNation

C&J:

Shame on you.

Right back at you. For your own set of transparently false equivalencies between right and left, and for your pathetic attempt to smear atheists, and for implying that atheists can’t be conservatives.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2011 2:35 PM
Comment #316780

“The followers of the hate-filled rightwing mouthpieces aren’t merely a few lone nuts like the ones I’ve listed above either. As this video segment demonstrates, there is in fact an entire violent rightwing movement of violence and intimidation going on in this country:”
They seem to have plenty of support here at Watchblog. A good many folks here seem like they’d rather eat a whole live chicken than denounce threatening/violent rhetoric by either side. My “disgustometer” is going right off the charts…..

Posted by: steve miller at January 11, 2011 3:43 PM
Comment #316783

knife fight, poltical knife fight, gun, political gun.

What does, “I want to politically knife you!” mean? Is it the same as “I want to politically debate you!”, or is it wrong when I say it, but ok when Obama says it?

Your double standard, j2t2 leads me to believe, to you there is no difference between my two examples. It is the person who utters the words or who interprets the words that is to be excused or blamed. It appears you believe words mean something…else. How many times have we read and heard others making excuses for the left’s misspeak. “What he meant to say…” “He was misinterpreted to say…”.

It sounds to me, j2t2, you are making excuses, not logical arguements. Obama said it. I heard it come from his own mouth. I heard it on the Glenn Beck show.
There, I said it. Glenn Beck. There’s your “excuse” j2t2! Now you can say it’s Glenn Beck’s fault. Only right wing fanatics listen to Glenn Beck. If they weren’t listening to Glenn Beck they wouldn’t be watching Obama say those mean things. Only faux news showed Obama saying “We’ll bring a gun!”. That darn faux news! How dare them take “We’ll bring a gun!” out of context! faux news should know he meant to say…..blah blah.


If you continue to be in denial that the right is guilty of a higher degree of it, I’m afraid it may never get toned down. The ‘voice’ is from the right. Any such mouthings from the left, have little ‘voice’. If that’s the world you wish to live in…so be it. But, it is not necessary to live there, if someone of persuasion would begin the process of condemnation.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 06:44 AM

This is Marysdude minimizing the left’s part in this discussion. He is in denial.

Any such mouthings from the left, have little ‘voice’.

What crap!! What happens when your children continually ignore you? Do you let them, or do you get more determined? Do you let them get away with ignoring you or do you make them listen? Do you give them the ability to dismiss you and tell you, “If you would just be quiet I will be much happier!” Is that good parenting? Is that healthy for a child’s upbringing? Your dismissive attitude toward the concerns of the right suggests this type of behavour is legitimate.

Political discourse is effective only when both sides are listening to each other.

The right has the ‘voice’ and only the right can tone it down. Once the rhetoric is under control on the right, the left will become silent by absence of the ‘voice’ to rebound off of.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 10:49 AM

Way to have an open mind, Marysdude.

This isn’t about what they literally said. This is about what they said meant, and what it was understood to mean.

Here is Stephen Daugherty’s double standard at work.

This isn’t about what they literally said.

He will bend over backwards excusing Obama’s words because he meant to say something else. Yet, he cannot in any way excuse “take him out” to mean take him out of office before his policies lead to the only recourse left to the people in dealing with an abusive government.

Grant all the privilage to Obama, yet none to his political allies. That is what Steven Daugherty and Marysdude are implying, insisting. The left doles out excuses and interpretation to discount what they say. The left misinterprets what the right says and that misinterpretation is considered gosple and cannot be refuted. Double standard anyone? Hypocracy? I believe so.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2011 3:49 PM
Comment #316782

KAP-
Are you going to bring an actual challenge to what I say, or are you going to keep trying to cheat the debate by portraying me as the enemy?

I know my party isn’t perfect. I don’t have to deny my party’s imperfection, though, to point out the comparatively more alarming rhetoric of the right.

On Kos, I oppose conspiracy theories like those offered by the truthers, anti-vaxx CT, and anything that calls for violence against the Republicans, on those rare occasions that it does show up.

And why? Because I am dedicated in principle to rational, rule of law based, constitutionally based government.

Thankfully, a lot of people stand with me.

To me, part of being a liberal is about being an effective, efficient consumer of information you find for yourself, a skeptic who can distinguish between logic and fallacy, rumor and fact. Those who do not have that kind of intellectual immune system might as well not call themselves free, because they’ll be manipulated by those who control the messages. That’s why I’m so hard on those who call themselves independent, but still rely on Republican sources and talking points. There’s no point to declaring independence of political thought if you still go back to the well of conservative propaganda to get your news.

Politics is a discipline that can be applied to all other disciplines, but must it be applied so, should it be applied so? In the end, politics is about what people want, and if the tail wags the dog on what people want, the politics can stray disastrously from serving the people’s best interests.

Or put another way, it’s better to filter your politics through what you know of the world beyond that discipline, than to filter that world instead through your politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2011 3:49 PM
Comment #316784

Rich,

Thank you for the link. It was exactly what I have been looking for as to a good source of basic facts to support your conclusion.

Similar to the “f*$# the rich” example in mine (becuase I recognize that link is tenuous at best) your link makes some jumps as well. In general, neo-nazi’s and conservative party are not the same thing. Even if I bought into the argument that “racists are conservative,” that doesn’t necessary translate into “conservatives are racists.” Picture a venn diagram, the with a subset within a much larger set. The smaller subset cannot be used to define the larger set.

That being said, the article still provide examples of truely conservative nutjobs taking things too far. So I will concede that argument…there are an equal if not greater percentage of nutjobs with conservative viewpoints than those with liberal viewpoints…


Stephen,

I believe you were referring to my first post, so I’m answering accordingly. (If not, just follow Rich’s example, I already conceded the second point).

I’m not saying your not allowed to criticize. Criticize all you want. I really just wondered how honest you were with yourself…

But when you jump to conclusions over and over, only to have the proven wrong. It makes me doubt your judgment. You don’t have to care about that, but you have maintained that you want to influence others on here, and losing credibility by continually jumping on the bandwagon (without regard for validity) doesn’t promote that.

Secondly, when you quote the rule of law to base your argument, after effectively neutering that position on your stance on illegal immigration, the argument loses all credence…because at this point…you’re just shooting blanks.

Then, while you could have just clarified how your two conflicting positions on the rule of law actually coexist, or somehow even compliment each other in that convoluted mind of yours, you don’t. Instead you try to accuse me of refusing to accept criticism after I flat out offered criticism of my own form of hypocrisy. Rather strange that someone offers up criticism on himself, yet you still try and say he is unwilling to accept any criticism…seems like someone just wants to avoid the subject. Did I hit a nerve, and your first instinct was to attack me personally?

Posted by: adam at January 11, 2011 3:52 PM
Comment #316785

Adrienne, thanks for your time and efforts to produce your list! It’s too bad that the only ones who pay any attention or give it any credence are those of us who don’t see everything through the myopic eyes of the right ,,,,and wrong!

Posted by: jane doe at January 11, 2011 3:55 PM
Comment #316786

For clarity I will correct “political allies” to say “political opponents”.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2011 3:55 PM
Comment #316787

jane doe, if I say I’m a Democratic will I be right?
If I say I’m a Republican will I always be wrong?
Can the “right” ever be right?
Can the “left” ever be wrong?

Too many people are believing it’s the left’s way or the Highway. Numerous comments on this blog say that if you disagree with the “left” it’s wrong. This narrow-minded attitude is an assault just as slapping someone across the face is.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2011 4:03 PM
Comment #316789

“bring a knife to a gunfight”: figure of speech.
“I’d like to kill him, choke him with my hands”: violent, threatening imagery.
“knife fight, poltical knife fight, gun, political gun.

What does, “I want to politically knife you!” mean? Is it the same as “I want to politically debate you!”, or is it wrong when I say it, but ok when Obama says it?”
Person who can’t (or won’t) grasp the distinction: moronic.

Posted by: steve miller at January 11, 2011 4:13 PM
Comment #316790
Rush Limbaugh reacted to the instantly infamous mugshot of Jared Lee Loughner, the suspected gunman in the Arizona shooting, by saying that the reason Loughner is smiling in the picture is because he knows he is backed by the Democratic Party.

Nuff said…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 4:20 PM
Comment #316791

Weary Willie-
The difference in this debate, the standard in question lies along the distinction between idioms based on violence (like “beating” an opponent in a “campaign”, “hitting back twice as hard”) and words that are meant to communicate the intent towards violence, or its consideration.

Obama was not going to hit, knife, shoot, or kick anybody. A ten year old with decent english comprehension would understand that. They know about words that literally mean one thing, but typically mean another.

Hell, I, a guy with Aspergers Syndrome, don’t have trouble with this concept, and literalism is supposed to be a problem for people like me.

But when a Tea Partier is saying that they might exercise a “second amendment remedy”, or that one might be called for, what exactly do they mean? Is it a competitive metaphor, like “bringing a knife to a gunfight” (which doesn’t refer to any actual weapons or fights), or is it a fancy way of saying that people might literally get up in arms, rather than just figuratively?

That’s the distinction. What is being communicated is more important than what it’s being communicated with. You’re taking what you would otherwise call, if directed at your own words, an excessively politically correct approach to Obama’s language, while you’re excusing rhetoric that is itself directed at communicating the potential, if not the threat of violence, should the Tea Partiers speaking not get their way.

Obama communicates peaceful things using some words with fighting imagery attached. The Tea Partiers communicate violent things, warn of real world violence if they don’t get what they want.

I insist that there’s no place for the threat of violence in our politics, in this country. I do not insist, as absurdly as you’re seeming to, that candidates not use words that are related to combat, fighting, or martial arts, as it relates to figures of speech about competing and contending.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2011 4:43 PM
Comment #316792

adam-
Did I jump to a conclusion?

Read what I wrote again. Even at the beginning, especially at the beginning, I held

a) that the attacker might not be of the Tea Party,

and

b)that the ideology of the attacker wasn’t as important as what the moment tells us about the importance of supporting peaceful debate, the rule of law, and faith in the constitutional system to redress greivances.

I know how news events like this get reported, the way the facts and the assumptions get jumbled up. While it’s true that I thought a Tea Partier was responsible at first, I was willing to accept that I might not know everything, contrary to what a lot of folks on this site claim about me.

I didn’t jump to conclusions again and again. If anything, I was tentative about points which others were not so reserved about.

What I did try to explain, again and again, is why it was so easy for so many to believe the worst about the Tea Party, and why it was BS to compare what many in the Tea Party said, to inspire that kind of fear and loathing, and what many brought up from Obama’s record, in order to allege a double standard.

As far as illegal immigrants go, a law which cannot be enforced is little better than no law at all. What I advocate are reforms that encourage the registration of all those who are in the country illegally, the strengthening of internal enforcement of immigration laws, rather than more fruitless focus on the border, and the integration of those who have known no other home as children into our society as responsible adults and citizens. I’m into solutions, not aspirations, as a basis for the rule of law.

You can claim I’m shooting blanks, but that’s little better than trash talk if you don’t have the arguments to back it. The criticism offered up here is based on a demonstrably false equivalence, and I think the fairly common figures of speech that Obama used exonerate him of the claim that his speech in those cases were incitement. Nothing about what he actually said spoke to actual violence, much less the imperative coming from him that his followers should, or might, have to take it up.

By the way: you don’t have to say something true to hit a nerve with somebody. If I confront you in public, and accuse you of sexually assaulting a family member or child, will you stay calm and not take it personally, or will you get angry with the person? The truth hurts, but oddly enough, so do lies. That’s why we have defamation laws, right?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2011 5:09 PM
Comment #316793
Obama was not going to hit, knife, shoot, or kick anybody. A ten year old with decent english comprehension would understand that. They know about words that literally mean one thing, but typically mean another.

You can’t see it can you, Stephen Daugherty? Just as you say Obama wasn’t going to literally hit, knife, shoot, or kick anybody, Sharon Angle did not say she was going to shoot Harry Reid if he was reelected.

You really delved deeply into the revisionist history that discounts the founding of this country. Did the founders just talk about it when England was subjugating the colonies? Ben Franklin tried but left England without consideration from his rulers. Did they say it was pointless to attempt to get justice and succumb to the will of England’s rule. What choice were they given, Stephen Daugherty?

Our founding fathers said enough is enough. They didn’t sit down and cry and expect it to gain their freedom. They took up arms. They used them because they had no choice. They were being subjugated by an unresponsive polity and an ever non-caring corporation. I know this doesn’t sound familiar to you, Stephen Daugherty, but it does to a growing number of people who won’t let the U.S. Constitution become irrelevant.

The question is: Are you going to continue to let government and corporations have their one-sided view that it’s We The Subjects, or are you going to pull your partisan blinders aside and listen to what We The People are trying to say?

What would you say to a person if they told you they will not give their child a social security number and they will instead teach them to save for their retirement?

What would you say to that person, Stephen Daugherty?


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2011 5:19 PM
Comment #316794

Why is the Texas shooting by an army shrink left off the hook? Oh, that’s right, I forgot Allah Akbar. That is his free pass. Distort all you care to, just do yourself a favor and buckle and if you have any compassion share it and dry up all the blame game. One person is responsible for the shooting and he is in custody and will be dealt with in the criminal justice system. This is not a left/right issue. Far too many people are trying to politicize it and make it a left/right issue. Too much of what was penned above is part of that sick game.

Take a time out and exhibit some care and consideration for those families who have lost someone and those who are still hospitalized with some very serious issue.

If all of the above have never believed a word from me, then believe me now. As one of those labeled on the right, I want very much for Congresswoman Giffords to recover in a very rapid manner so that she can serve the people who elected her. This to me is very important.

May the peace of Jesus Christ rest upon those families in Tucson. Amen

Posted by: tom humes at January 11, 2011 5:36 PM
Comment #316799

Jane, thanks.

steve miller:

“A good many folks here seem like they’d rather eat a whole live chicken than denounce threatening/violent rhetoric by either side. My “disgustometer” is going right off the charts…..”

Yeah, makes me disgusted too, Steve. Another thing that makes me disgusted was this from C&J:

We all agree that he evidently was an atheist, truther, flag burning pot smoker, none of which are characteristics of typical conservatives. There is no basis to believe that he was influenced by conservative commentators or even listened to them.

Characteristics of typical conservatives!? That is just such a gobsmacking statement to make! Obviously C&J has no clue how many young atheist pot smokers there are in the 9/11 Truth movement, who also happen to be Ron Paul loving, anti-government, tea partiers!
And in fact, there is at least some basis to believe that right before this nut went on his killing rampage he may have been influenced by anti-government tea party rhetoric. Because in the last (totally nutty) Youtube message he put up right before he went out to assassinate Giffords and others in that crowd, he was babbling almost incoherently on about the Constitution, and of not being able to trust the current government, and in true tea party fashion even exclaimed: “No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver!”

Seriously, I wouldn’t have been at all surprised to hear that he’d been wearing one of those “Don’t Retreat, Re-Load!” t-shirts when he went to carry out his premeditated killing of the Democratic Congresswoman.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment #316805

During all the many tea party rallies and the among the millions of people who have attended, the only time violence took place was when some union thugs beat up a black man in a wheelchair for supporting tea party ideas.

Let’s be really clear.

The shooter was not associated with liberal hate groups and so we cannot blame liberal groups such as moveon.org for what he did.

The racists on the left who support quotas also cannot be blamed for the shooting, so we cannot blame the NAACP or Al Sharpton.

There is no way that the service union, whose thugs engaged in that violence at the rally mentioned above, so indeed the unions were not involved in this.

Liberal pundits throw around a lot of hate, but I don’t think we could blame Olbermann or Maddow for the tragic events in Arizona.

And of course, although some statements from people like Rahm Emanuel or even Obama himself could be misinterpreted as calls to violence, we certainly cannot blame them for the shooting.

Rather than blame all these leftist commentators and Democratic politicians, I think we should just accept that this was the act of an unaffiliated madman.

I am sure you agree, Stephen. Democrats and liberals are not responsible for this shooting and we should not allow anybody to imply that liberal hate was behind this. It is despicable that anyone would imply that liberals, Democrats or anybody else has encouraged violence.

Adrienne

If you are outraged … well good. Just so you know, your comments are always welcomed. I think they accurately demonstrate the mind-set of many left wing individuals.

Stephen

Maybe you should work to think a little more clearly rather than blood libel your fellow Americans. I also think it is appalling to blame all Muslims for the acts of a few. You should stop generalizing.

Marysdude

If Rush said what you claim he did, he is acting as childish as many liberals and Democratic politicians, as well as many commentators here. He should be ashamed of himself. So should many others. I reject the idea that left-wing hate speech provoked this incident.

Steve miller

Everybody here has condemned the violence. I reject the idea that gunman was inspired by left-wing hate speech and I suppose you do too. It is silly to blame the acts of an unaffiliated madman on left-wing statements or on the Democrats.

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #316806

Stephen, as long as you stay in denial you are the enemy. At least I can say I put equal blame on the political retoric, unlike you and your my democrats are angels crap I know what they mean when they say things like “They bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun” crap.

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 6:38 PM
Comment #316812

Their thought patterns are to get on top by whatever means possible.

If it means beating a guy in a wheelchair, so be it. If it means getting a few news outlets to print rumor and slander to further the end, two words: plausable deniability.

When the Democratic Party has a measureable and consistant domination of this nations politics from it’s beginning, it must share the blame.

Can you say the Democratic Party is also to blame for the condition of this country, Stephen Daugherty?

Yes or No?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2011 7:05 PM
Comment #316813

Kap and weary

We got them on this one and they know it. We will hear a lot of impotent rage, but it is all over but the shouting. Reasonable liberals understand that their left wing went too far. We all reject that left-wing hate speech provoked the shooting, of course.

Maybe now that the haters and children are done with their ranting, we can focus on the victims and maybe how to avoid such events in future.

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 7:11 PM
Comment #316817

C&J,

It is the ‘voice’. It is consequences.

Rush did indeed say what I quoted. It was not taken out of context. It may not be worse than many things Democrats or liberals have said…the difference is the ‘voice’. Limbaugh has millions of minions to repeat and pass on what he says and what is assumed he thinks. Nothing on the right can compare to the damage done by that one man.

We all know this nut in Arizona did not do what he did because of a political philosophy. We all know he did what he did because he was not balanced. That has little to do with the degree of hate, lies and misinformation out there, ninety percent of which comes from the right. It has been being sowed for thirty years or so. It reached a certain peak during the ’90s, but the crescendo is more recent, and the crest is not in sight.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 7:23 PM
Comment #316819

There you go again…crowing about ‘winning’ (perhaps prematurely?), there are consequences to ‘winning’. If what you say to KAP and Willie are true, and you have us on the ropes, it merely means you have learned NOTHING about the circumstances and causes for the ugliness that abounds.

I pity you, and the other two as well.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 7:27 PM
Comment #316821

Marysdude

I am just glad that in our small way we could blunt the silliness of leftist trying set blame for the deeds of a madman. I do indeed take some satisfaction. If we leave the lefties alone, they get out of hand until they cause trouble for themselves or others.

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 7:30 PM
Comment #316829

C&J wrote:Kap and weary

We got them on this one and they know it. We will hear a lot of impotent rage, but it is all over but the shouting. Reasonable liberals understand that their left wing went too far. We all reject that left-wing hate speech provoked the shooting, of course.

Maybe now that the haters and children are done with their ranting, we can focus on the victims and maybe how to avoid such events in future.

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 07:11 PM

This must be the single most petulant, childish, and yes, diversionary drivel I have ever read on Watchblog.

You willfully misunderstand and mis-interpret solely for the purpose of furthering your politics.

You do your best to provoke rage by twisting meanings and ignoring the reasoned and sensible answers to your sallies. Then, you try to accuse the LEFT side of rage???????? Hilarious/sad……

The left wing went too far…..doing…what?????

The point here is that threats and bluster are inappropriate and potentially dangerous in politics.

My sincere advice to you: it may be time for you to grow up!!!!!!!

Posted by: steve miller at January 11, 2011 8:46 PM
Comment #316832
Adrienne wrote: Well, I couldn’t disagree more.
That’s fine. You’re entitled and free to believe whatever you want.

Unfortunately, the facts don’t support your assertions.

Adrienne wrote: I realize you constantly enjoy trying to make all these false equivalencies between both sides of the political aisle, but I think most people have understood that over the past thirty-plus years that the toxic political atmosphere that has poisoned this country has come overwhelmingly from the Right.
Nonsense. The violent rhetoric comes from BOTH political extremes.

And what part of these similarities do you disagree with; and why?

Adrienne wrote: You want to talk equivalence between right and left? Sorry, but the left never got around to making up an official smear list to apply to their opponents. And the sad fact is, since that time the list of toxic hate-filled rightwing rhetoric has escalated exponentially.
Again, it comes from BOTH sides.

Take off the partisan blinders, and you’ll see that.
I don’t care for or support either side of the duopoly, so I’m not defending either side.
The fact is, BOTH sides are guilty of irresponsible rhetoric.

Adrienne wrote: Indeed, it is GLARINGLY obvious that rightwing politicians and their media mouthpieces repeatedly foment hatred against the politicians, people, and causes of the left.
Again, they BOTH do it. But left-leaning loyalists simply don’t want to admit it.
Adrienne wrote: The followers of the hate-filled rightwing mouthpieces aren’t merely a few lone nuts like the ones I’ve listed above either. As this video segment demonstrates, there is in fact an entire violent rightwing movement of violence and intimidation going on in this country:
It’s all anecdotal, unless you have a database that lists, categorizes, and counts all irresponsible rhetoric from BOTH sides.

There is lot of violent rhetoric from BOTH sides.

It’s not hard to list many instances of violent rhetoric from BOTH sides (including some of it from Barack Obama, which you refuse to acknowledge).

  • There’s a LOT of extreme and threatening language and images used by leftists in the context of the climate change debate, rhetoric that has led directly to crimes and murders.
  • Leftists have published violent and bloody films that depict children being liquidated in blood and guts for not toeing the line on global warming.
  • When the 10:10 campaign produced a video that displayed children in a classroom being murdered by their teacher for refusing to lower their CO2 emissions, hardly a ripple was registered by the same leftist blogs that now are trying to blame “rightists” rhetoric for Jared Lee Loughner’s mass murders.
  • There also was no condemnation when a lobbying group used an picture of a dead girl being hanged to push their propaganda about melting icebergs.
  • Rhetoric was also displayed by ABC in an online kids game in which children were told when to kill themselves based on their carbon consumption.
  • In year in 2010, an article carried by a Greenpeace website urged climate activists to resort to criminal activity in an effort to reinvigorate momentum for the stalling global warming agenda, while ominously threatening climate skeptics, “we know where you live”.
  • In June 2009, a global warming activist posted an article on the Talking Points Memo website entitled “At What Point Do We Jail Or Execute Global Warming Deniers?”
    And, as for irresponsible rhetoric from national figures (e.g. Barack Obama, the President of the United States)
      By Barack Obama:
    • “Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother” – Barack Obama
    • “Bring it on”- Barack Obama
    • “Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans” – Barack Obama
    • “I want all Americans to get in each others faces! – Barack Obama
    • “You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Barack Obama (source: www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html)
    • “Republicans are our enemies” – Barack Obama
    • “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” - Barack Obama
    • “Hit Back Twice As Hard”! - Barack Obama In 2009, at the height of the heated town hall debates where America stood up and told the Obama regime they did NOT want government run health care, Obama addressed union members from the SEIU, and told them to “hit back twice as hard“! The direct result of Obama’s violent rhetoric was the severe beating of Kenneth Gladney, a black man, at a ST Louis town hall meeting. Gladney was beaten by a large group of the purple shirted union thugs, and called a n*gg*r numerous times. Gladney was beaten so severely that he was confined to a wheel chair while he recuperated. Big Government has the nasty details of the results of Barack Obama’s direct call for violence, here.
    • “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“ - Barack Obama
    • “… hand to hand combat” - Barack Obama
    • “It’s time to Fight for it.” - Barack Obama
    • “Punish your enemies.” - Barack Obama
    • “I’m itching for a fight.” - Barack Obama
  • “I am going to strangle all Republicans who don’t agree with me politically” – Joe Biden
  • “God Damn America” – Rev. Wright
  • “We should rip the heart right out of the chest of a former Vice President of The United States!” – Ed Shultz
  • “If I had my way, I would see Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell strapped down to electric chairs and lit up like Christmas trees. The better to light the way for American Democracy and American Freedom!” — Democratic Talk Radio’s Stephen Crockett
  • “For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who’s already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn’t conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?” — University Professor Ward Churchill on supporting soldiers who frag their officers
  • “If I got (Condi Rice) a** on camera, I would put my Mars Air Jordans so far up her butt that the Mayo Clinic would have to remove them.” — Spike Lee
  • “Why couldn’t, uh, why couldn’t have (Rush Limbaugh) croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?” — Bill Maher
  • “Why not go kill a Muslim? Don’t leave it up to the soldiers, don’t leave it up to the middle east. You?ve got Muslims in New Jersey. Why not go kill some?” — Mike Malloy
  • “I used to have violence fantasies about Scott McClellan because of the inpenetrable wall of idiocy and supposed ignorance, some of which was probably not supposed, that behind which he used to hide at every press conference. All those feelings are being shifted now to Dana Perino, violence fantasies.” — radio host, Mike Malloy
  • “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.” — Michael Moore
  • “It’s good (Michelle Malkin’s) in D.C. and I’m in New York. I’d spit on her if I saw her.” — Geraldo Rivera
  • “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*stards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” — David Roberts, Grist Magazine
  • “Capital punishment? I think that if, if I’ve got to find that guy in Spain who indicted Pinochet and get him for war crimes, and I get him to do the same thing for Bush. And in that case, I would be for capital punishment. Otherwise, I am against it.” — New York gubernatorial Green Party candidate Malachy McCourt on The Chris Matthews show
  • “I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow….I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Bill Maher
  • A video by former Democratic Mike Gravel, holding a ‘Blood’ Covered baseball bat standing next to a Mock Presidential Seal and the White House.
  • “I’m glad [Al Qaeda terrorists] finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington.” — former Congressman Bill Delahunt, D-Massachusetts hoping to get one of Dick Cheney’s aides killed by Al-Qaeda?
There’s a LOT, LOT, LOT more, and much of it from BOTH the left and the right.

We could do this all day long, and all it would prove is that BOTH sides do it way too much (roughly, about the same).
Therefore, your list and claims that rightists are any worse than leftists is not very convincing at all.
Statistically, it’s possible that one side is possibly worse than the other, and possibly the right, but not to any significant degree that matters, since BOTH sides are very guilty.
Especially since there are SO many irresponsible rhetoric from BOTH sides; so much that it would fill volumes.
Unless you’ve got some sort of comprehensive database that lists, categorizes, and counts all (or most) irresponsible rhetoric from BOTH sides, you’ve proven nothing.

The sad fact is, too many people on BOTH sides are blind to THEIR own party’s and national figures’ irresponsible rhetoric.
And partisan blinders and blind loyalties are not only NOT helping, but probably making it worse, by wallowing in the blind, circular partisan-warfare.

Lastly, this CBS poll states that most Americans (including the majority of Democrats polled) think the “rhetoric” is unrelated to the shooting in Tuscon, AZ.

And I tend to agree. Irresponsible language should be avoided, but if you’re going incarcerate everyone who uses irresponsible rhetoric, then (based on your own logic), Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and many other people from BOTH political parties will have to be incarcerated too. Good luck with that.

The fact is, as usual, there are too many people on BOTH sides who are:

  • (1) always looking for any opportunity to try to lay blame on the OTHER party for something,
  • (2) so blinded by their own blind partisan loyalties, that they actually believe THEIR party is not guilty of irresponsible rhetoric too,
  • (3) and so blinded by their own blind partisan loyalties, that they’ll stoop so low as to politicize a tragedy to smear the OTHER party.

Of course, blind partisan loyalists on BOTH sides refuse to see that fact, but it’s true. And those blind partisan loyalties is what allows FOR-SALE, irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians to grow increasingly brazen, irresponsible, corrupt, and get re-elected over and over and over.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2011 8:52 PM
Comment #316834

Dude, no need for pity. At least I didn’t go and blame left wing hate retoric for this tragedy. If it was retoric to blame I would attribute it to both sides not just one, because both sides are equally guilty of spewing hate. Go back in the archives of this blog you will find all kinds of hate retoric from both sides.

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 9:15 PM
Comment #316835

Here is an interesting link to right wing hate speech .

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/275768

Posted by: j2t2 at January 11, 2011 9:18 PM
Comment #316836

Steve miller

thanks for your thoughtful reply. the left went too far when it connect the shooter with “right wing hatred”. It was in itself hateful and bigoted. There has been absolutely no connection shown. None.

First of all, they are factually incorrect that the bluster caused this attack. The shooter had a grudge against Giffords since 2007. There was no tea party then and nobody outside Alaska had heard of Sarah Palin. Second, there is a lot of analysis of “right” hate speech. As D.a.n. shows, there is as much on the left.

If the simple statement had been that there is too much hate in politics today, there would be no argument.

So what we have here is a terrible tragedy and a bunch of fools use the victims for their political agenda. The people who have tried to do this have been on the left. People on the right know the shooter was just a nutty loner.

That is why I went to great lengths to explain why I do not blame leftist hate speech for the violence. Do you have a problem with that?

Sorry if I appeal a little petulant. I have been writing here a long time, but never do I remember such an offensive bunch of crap spilled by my liberal colleagues. Perhaps you can perceive my contempt for what they are saying and I regret that I have had to come down to that level. Since many of the writers have not been so crazy or malicious in the past, I tried to cut them some slack.

But I won’t let them get away with blood libel.

Let’s be very clear. There is absolutely no connection identified with this gunman on either the right or the left. I have not right to blame left wing hate for his actions and I have not. Other here have no right to blame conservatives.

What have I misinterpreted? Many of the leftist on this blog have implied and said outright that the shooter was somehow influenced by conservatives. They have no evidence for this at all. The shooter had no known connections with conservatives or liberals for that matter.

I think that the connection is not only dishonest, but it is also contemptible. Repeated attempts to explain logically did not work, so I decided to give them the simple irony. It bothers them. Good. My goal is to set up obstacles to their hate speech. I have given up trying to convince, but I have noticed that unanswered leftist libel tends to make them think it is confirmed.

I regret that you think that it is below me to come down to their level … actually I don’t care what you think about it. It needs to be done. When they stop, so will I.

I have cast enough pearls for now. I expect I will have to come back to bring some adult supervision here again, so see you later.

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 9:20 PM
Comment #316837

Lets not forget this group of Hatriots.


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/95112/

Posted by: j2t2 at January 11, 2011 9:24 PM
Comment #316838

j2t2

The problem with your link is that the author is a very poor historian. His link talks about “right wing” hate re Kennedy. Recall that Oswald was a Marxist, who praised Castro and had taken the extraordinary step to actually go to the Soviet Union.

“Right wing” hate had nothing to do with Oswald, who was a man of the extreme left.

Your author is trying to pull the same crap that many leftist pundits are doing with the more recent violence.

Let’s remember that Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman with left wing views and that the more recent shooter was a lone gunman with evidently no firm political views at all. In neither case is there any reason to believe that either legitimate conservative or legitimate liberal “hate speech” had anything to do with it.

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 9:28 PM
Comment #316839

Five UCLA undergraduate and graduate students examined transcripts of one 40-minute, uninterrupted segment from each of the two programs, which aired in July 2008.

The study found that:

* Dehumanizing metaphors were used in 185 statements. Such metaphors evoked warfare, heroism, enemies, biblical characters, criminality, persecution and other representations.
* There were 77 instances of flawed argumentation, including ad hominem statements, guilt by association, and hidden assumptions or missing premises.
* Divisive language was used in 79 instances, in which individuals were presented in an “us versus them” framework as either supporting or opposing the show’s worldview.
* 33 false statements were used to validate the hosts’ points and to promote public opinion. A false statement is a simple falsehood, exaggerated statement or decontextualized fact that renders a statement misleading.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-study-finds-extensive-use-79402.aspx

Care to guess which two programs?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 11, 2011 9:31 PM
Comment #316841

“Recall that Oswald was a Marxist, who praised Castro and had taken the extraordinary step to actually go to the Soviet Union.”

C&J The article doesn’t talk about Oswald but instead deals with the issue of hate speech before and after the assassination of JFK in Dallas. The point is the conservatives have a long running history of hate speech in this Country.

C&J, I am not trying to prove that conservative hate speech was a driving force behind the shooters attack in Tuscon, I don’t know what motivated him, either in 2007 nor now. Over time we may find out conclusively that it did or it didn’t contribute in this massacre.

I do believe that the copious amounts of hate speech from so many different conservatives over such a long period of time did not help the nation to resolve the problem of so many on the left being the brunt of attacks by the deranged and or mentally ill. We seem to see many more acts of violence that have as victims innocent bystanders such as the OKC bomber, who I think we all acknowledge as a conservative right wing type, or those to the left on the political spectrum as the recent shooting in Arkansas attests to. Is it any wonder that many on the left are suspicious of tragedies like the one in Tuscon?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 11, 2011 9:51 PM
Comment #316842

Just finished googleing both right wing hate speech and left wing hate speech, both seperately of cource,and found the hate from both sides repulsive. Each side has their fair share of idiotic hate filled retoric. To all who think their side is less of a hate monger I say BULL___T. Each side is equally guilty.

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 10:11 PM
Comment #316843

j2t2,

I’m still suspicious of the right. Suspicious because they refuse to believe that the ones with the loudest and most persistent voice (squeaky axle gets the grease) is from the conservative political philosophy. They continue to ignore real world results of that voice. As long as they deny their culpability, we’ll never get a chance to heal. They may even have carried it too far to back off now. Pride keeps the hatefulness alive, and that pride is so misplaced as to be a psychosis or mania.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 10:15 PM
Comment #316844

KAP,

Once more…if I say I’d like to kill a person in the Republican Party, I’ve said a bad thing. As long as I don’t really intend to do it, I’ve actually hurt no one.

When those with an audience of a few millions, or someone in high position says they wish me dead because of my political beliefs, it means something sinister, because the ‘voice’ reaches an audience some of whom are all too willing, even eager, to carry out such a thing. Perhaps the target won’t be me, but some Representative conducting an assemblage on a street in Tuscon, Arizona. It is the atmosphere of hate, and the voice loud enough to instill hate and suspicion in others. Conservatives have harped on ‘government’ as the enemy of the people, when in fact it is still the government OF the people. Conservatives make it the enemy and act all innocent when some whacko takes them serious. Again, the volume control is in YOUR hands.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 11, 2011 10:26 PM
Comment #316845

Marysdude, your pity and a dollar will get you a few pieces of penny bubblegum, thanks to the Federal Reserve cabal that is controlling our currency.

Am I unbalanced? Am I a nut? Should I be watched, investigated, examined, discounted, ridiculed? Should I be considered a “person of interest” because I believe our currency should be a currency authorized by the constitution?

Did you know, Marysdude, that if I asked my employee to accept a silver dime in leiu of three 1$ federal reserve notes and he accepted, did you know I would be breaking the law?

I pay my employee with silver and I get arrested, my business is confiscated, my life is ruined, but in the U.S. Constitution it says:

Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Justify this! Make me believe the federal government needs to do this! Tell me why I should be arrested for using gold and silver as legal tender!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2011 10:35 PM
Comment #316847

Dude, What has what you wrote in #316844 have to do with me blameing both sides of hate spewing? As I said go back in the archives of watchblog you will find all kinds of hate from both sides. I tired of the your sides worse then mine BS when both sides are spewing the same venom.

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 10:52 PM
Comment #316848

J2t2

Precisely. It deals with the hate speech - which has NO effect on the assassin. None. So why does this author bring up supposed hate speech in the context of the assassination? Is he just stupid and cannot understand that it is silly to bring up completely unrelated facts. Maybe he can tell us what phase the moons of Jupiter were in during that time, which is as relevant.

No, it is clear that he is making a juxtaposition, despite the inconvenient truth that the assassin was an extreme left wing person, he wants us to conclude the opposite.

Re hate speech - we can agree that the right and the left spew way too much hate. But how do you propose to stop Michael Moore from making his next movie, Rush from making his next broadcast or Kos from posting webpages? There was plenty of truly offensive hate speech against Bush and Cheney and a lot against Palin now. Do we want to get into that censorship business?

Beyond all of that - this act of violence has no connection evidently with either hate speech from the right or hate speech from the left. We should not be discussing the subjects as if they were closely related.

The acts of crazy shooters are always weird. The Columbine killers went after Christians and jocks. What does that mean? Should we blame all those teen movies that portray Christians and jocks as the mean villains?

In the Arizona case, an avowed atheist, pot smoking, flag burning disturbed young man killed people. Which of those traits sound like tea party people?

Remember, there have been many tea party rallies over the course of almost two years with millions of total participants, but the only violence was perpetrated by union thugs at an early meeting. How many leftist large demonstrations could you hold before there was some rioting or fighting?

So keep the subjects of hate speech and this violence separate, since discussing them in the same place lead the credulous to think there is connection. We have seen it with some of our blog partners.

And I am not trying to prove that liberal hate speech was a driving force behind the shooters attack in Tuscon, I don’t know what motivated him, either in 2007 nor now. Over time we may find out conclusively that it did or it didn’t contribute in this massacre.

So let me repeat again (and again) that there is no evidence linking the shooter either to right or to left-wing hate speech.

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 11:12 PM
Comment #316849

Marysdude, If you had one-hundred-thousand Federal Reserve Notes in your pocket, what would you consider yourself to be?

Would you be rich, or special, or fortunate, blessed, lucky, deserving, entitled?

What would you think if you woke up and found one-hundred-thousand dollars in your hand?

Fortunate, certainly! Right, Marysdude?

Even if you found these notes and were able to burn them in the furnace to keep your children warm you would be fortunate, yes?

At what point should we stop blaming others?

Do we keep bickering until our life’s savings is reduced to a warm bowl of soup? Was it you who said someone needs to stand up and challenge…?

What happens when someone stands up and challenges? They’re labeled as racist and homophobes and ignorant terrorists.

That doesn’t sound like an open dialoge to me!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2011 11:13 PM
Comment #316851

Marysdude you have every right to be suspicious of the right, they have earned this distrust. Just because this current shooter may not have been encouraged by the hate spewed by talk radio and Faux doesn’t mean that others haven’t or someone in the future won’t.

It’s obvious that those on the right cannot accept that what they listen to is misinformation, half truths and outright lies. Look at the 40 minutes from two different right wing hate jocks. Look at the recent testing that confirmed Faux listeners and the right wing talk radio crowd were dumbed down by these guys. It is just a fact. They do not have the ethics to admit this but these guys know exactly what it is they do to their followers.

Many on the right try to equate what they determine to be hate filled speech on the left with the hate emanating from the conservative side of the dial but when was the last time a liberal pulled out a gun and open fired at a conservative representative of the American people? When was the last time a conservative state party leader was gunned down? when was the last time a liberal bombed a clinic and killed doctors and/or nurses? When was the last time a liberal opened fire in a conservative church and killed people When was the last time… well you get my point. Why is it always the liberals getting killed if the hate speech is equal on both sides of the dial?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 11, 2011 11:20 PM
Comment #316852

J2, and the left is so trustworthy? RIGHT!!

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 11:27 PM
Comment #316853

j2t2, your comments are provoking violence.

Just because this current shooter may not have been encouraged by the hate spewed by talk radio and Faux doesn’t mean that others haven’t or someone in the future won’t.

Go put yourself in jail, j2t2! You are provoking someone in the future! Your comment excuses anyone who can blame the “right” in their own mind.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2011 11:39 PM
Comment #316854

j2t2

Not many officials are gunned down in general, thank God, so we cannot identify a trend. Reagan was the last president to be shot. People like Sarah Palin need significant security details to protect them.

There is also a problem of definition. We tend to classify some sort of violence as hate crimes and others not. As you may remember, I was personally affected by such things when my son was a random victim of six black youths, who beat him and kicked him in the face with the evident intent to hurt and disfigure. Since they didn’t speak to him before they attacked, didn’t rob him and called him a “cracker” while they beat him, I suppose the attack was racially motivated. It was a hate crime, but you only heard about it from what I wrote. The news media ignored it (as we wanted, BTW) Had my son been a black kid attacked by six white youths, it would have been international news. Sharpton would have shone up to demand justice.

The Columbine killers went after Christians and jocks, both groups more commonly identified with conservatives. Nobody made the connection because we all understand that there is no connection to be made. Mass murders John Wayne Gacy and Jeffry Dalhmer were homosexuals. Nobody makes a political point of that because there is no political point to be made. But you connected attacks on abortion clinics to attacks on liberals. Are all those who seek abortions liberal? Church arson is unfortunately not uncommon. Hateful people do it. You don’t hear about it unless you live near the place or unless it affects a liberal issue.

Conservatives tend to be law abiding people, as are most liberals. Some members of the news media have set about to portray them as violent and hateful and when they find anything that confirms their story, they go with it.

We don’t know the political beliefs of most violent offenders and we have very little political violence in the U.S. But how do we count it? If an anti-global demonstration gets violent, is that left wing political violence? I have heard criminals justify their robberies by saying that the people they robbed deserved it for being rich. Is that the result of leftist hate speech and the development of a feeling of entitlement, or is it really just a bad guy making an excuse for bad behavior? If a crook justified his bad behavior by claiming a conservative cause, would that make him any more political?

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 11:56 PM
Comment #316855

D.C.

What does it mean?

District of Columbia.

Oh! Is it everywhere?

No! It’s in a small part of the State of Maryland.

Oh! Ok! I’m not scared anymore.


C&J, are people in D.C. the only people that matter?


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 12, 2011 12:00 AM
Comment #316856

You would think so if you watched the broadcast channels on freeTV.

D.C. big banging drums! Local news, toot toot little horn.

Little horn toots big notes when D.C. comes to town!

Am I nuts, Marysdude?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 12, 2011 12:11 AM
Comment #316857
… when was the last time a liberal pulled out a gun and open fired at a conservative representative of the American people?

HHMMMmmmmmmmmmm …

Who shot President Ronald Reagan?

Who shot President John F. Kennedy?

Who shot President Abraham Lincoln?

Who shot President William McKinley?

Who shot John Lennon?

And was Jared Lee Loughner a right-winger?

Were those murders all by rightists?

No, they weren’t, so why should anyone assume that they were inspired by irresponsible rhetoric from ONLY one political party?

Also, trying to politicize this is not working, based on a CBS pol, because this CBS poll states that most Americans (including the majority of Democrats polled) think the “rhetoric” is unrelated to the shooting in Tuscon, AZ.

We can all list thousands, if not tens of thousands of instances of irresponsible comments by many national figures (including President Obama and VP Joe Biden), and all it proves is that many on BOTH sides are guilty of irresponsible rhetoric.

There’s most likely an equally egregious example of irresponsible rhetoric from the left for every example of irresponsible rhetoric from the right. There are reams and reams of equally irresponsible and egregious comments from BOTH sides.

However, blind partisan loyalties prevent some people from recognizing that fact, and they actually believe that THEIR party is somehow better.

People will believe what they want, regardless of the truth, but there is plenty of irresponsible rhetoric coming from BOTH extremes, and saying it is one-sided or lop-sided is not supported by the facts. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing, because there are many national and well-known figures and organizations on BOTH sides that spew equally egregious and irresponsible rhetoric.

What’s very obvious about all of this is that it is VERY partisan motivated, and clearly demonstrates those that are all to eager to wallow in the blind, circular, partisan warfare, twist the fact, rewrite history, regardless of the true facts and history.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful. The logical and peaceful thing to do is to simply vote FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians out of office.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2011 12:18 AM
Comment #316859

Alex and George were talking one day and Alex said: George, we need an exise tax! We need to put it on Alcahol!

George said: “Dagnabit, Al! That’s a heck’o an Idea!”

Alexander then gathered an army, paid for with money from the treasury, and marched it into the state of Virginia.

There was a horrific battle between Alexander’s army and the eight citizens of Virginia that opposed the exise tax on liquor, resulting in the distruction of the still.

The more you know! bdingbding!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 12, 2011 12:33 AM
Comment #316862

C&J, The dem party leader in Arkansas was gunned down this past year I believe. The Unitarian church people were killed in Tennessee this past few years. In cased you missed the link in my previous comment-

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/95112/


“Reagan was the last president to be shot.”

Wasn’t Reagan shot by a mentally ill son of a conservative, obsessed with a Jodie Foster?

“The Columbine killers went after Christians and jocks, both groups more commonly identified with conservatives.”

I don’t think so C&J. Many far right conservatives wear their religion on their political sleeve but just because they toot their horn louder doesn’t mean they are the only Christians just the loudest. Jocks! I would also have to disagree with you. These stereotypes you promote are something so here is one aren’t all blacks dems/liberals and aren’t most jocks black so by default in the stereotype world I would say your wrong.

“But you connected attacks on abortion clinics to attacks on liberals. Are all those who seek abortions liberal?”

Probably not but what about the doctors and nurses killed in these attacks, how many Conservative Doctors and Nurses work in clinics that provide abortions? Aren’t most of these clinic bombings by conservative Christians?

“Church arson is unfortunately not uncommon. Hateful people do it. You don’t hear about it unless you live near the place or unless it affects a liberal issue.”

Call your local Faux news station and complain. Do they promote just the church fires that are set in liberal churches? Isn’t that a form of hate in and of itself?

You can keep on with the justifications as you will C&J, but “When was the last time a conservative state party leader was gunned down? when was the last time a liberal bombed a clinic and killed doctors and/or nurses? When was the last time a liberal opened fire in a conservative church and killed people and when was the last time a liberal blew up a government building with fertilizer and a rental van?

Now I am not saying it hasn’t happened …..


So all,it would seem that the hate ball is on the conservative side of the field IMHO. That doesn’t make conservatives a winner in my book though. It is time to rethink the whole conservative propaganda program and cull the hate out of it. Ratings may go down when mythology is replaced with facts but the movement followers will become smarter and better people for it.

Leave the massacres, the shootings for political reasons, the bombings of revenge and murder in general to the mentally ill should be the new battle cry of conservatives and they should shout it at the Beck’s and the Savages and the Limbaugh of the movement leadership. Well maybe we should shorten it to bumper sticker size for ease of conversation.” Don’t be a Hatriot be a Patriot” should work.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 12, 2011 12:47 AM
Comment #316863

Your posts are disgusting, j2t2.

Don’t you see many others denouncing this type of blamegame retoric?

Can’t you see the light, or are you still following the left-wing, superior position, on top at any cost, mentality?

Geesh!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 12, 2011 12:59 AM
Comment #316865

“Who shot President Ronald Reagan?”

Not a liberal.

“Who shot President John F. Kennedy?”

Not a liberal, a communist.

“Who shot President Abraham Lincoln?”

Not a liberal. A confederate spy

Who shot President William McKinley?

Not a liberal. An Anarchist.

Who shot John Lennon?

What! he isn’t a conservative representative of the people is he?

And was Jared Lee Loughner a right-winger?

Who knows.

“Were those murders all by rightists?”

No they weren’t not all of them, but what about the man from Arkansas last year. I just don’t see the relevance between these people you mentioned and the past 20 years of hate radio D.A.N.

“No, they weren’t, so why should anyone assume that they were inspired by irresponsible rhetoric from ONLY one political party?”

Once again we seem to be going off on a tangent here, there doesn’t seem to be any relevance here. It is like saying 100 people were killed in Detroit 50 or more years ago so what does just one talk radio station in Baltimore have to do with it, IMHO.

“Also, trying to politicize this is not working, based on a CBS pol, because this CBS poll states that most Americans (including the majority of Democrats polled) think the “rhetoric” is unrelated to the shooting in Tuscon, AZ.”

Well you have an automatic 50 per cent that would say that no matter what D.A.N, judging from this thread and then you have guys like me who say that so far one would have to say the same thing as we do not know if it was or not as factor. I do think hate radio and such could have had an influence on the shooter as it is prevalent in Arizona according to the local Sheriff. To discount hate radio as a possible influence is a mistake IMHO though D.A.N.

“We can all list thousands, if not tens of thousands of instances of irresponsible comments by many national figures (including President Obama and VP Joe Biden), and all it proves is that many on BOTH sides are guilty of irresponsible rhetoric.”

Perhaps so D.A.N. but the question remains who acts out on this rhetoric liberals or conservatives? Take a look at the track record this past decade and ask yourself why is it the dems/liberals dieing. Why is it the conservatives doing the killing if the hate rhetoric was so evenly distributed by both parties?

“People will believe what they want, regardless of the truth, but there is plenty of irresponsible rhetoric coming from BOTH extremes, and saying it is one-sided or lop-sided is not supported by the facts.”

It is lop-sided though D.A.N when you look at all the facts it is lop-sided. Look who is consistently ending up on the bullet side of the gun and it is lop-sided. SO unless you can name a few instances in this decade where conservatives have been on the bullet side of the gun then I believe it is lop-sided.

To have a tragedy such as the one in Tuscon happen and to blindly shut our eyes as to why it has been so one sided the past decade doesn’t help to solve the problem. Using the” he did it to” excuse doesn’t solve the problem. Allowing those hate mongers like Limbaugh to continue blaming everyone but themselves doesn’t solve the problem. To allow Beck and Palin to act like they are victims doesn’t solve the problem.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 12, 2011 1:24 AM
Comment #316867

d.a.n.

The violent rhetoric comes from BOTH political extremes.

Sure it does. But a hell of lot more of it comes from the right. You know it. I know it. We all know it. It’s the elephant in the room, so to speak.

The fact is, BOTH sides are guilty of irresponsible rhetoric.

Agreed. However, the right has got an entire cable news station dedicated to broadcasting their intentionally irresponsible rhetoric 24/7.

It’s all anecdotal, unless you have a database that lists, categorizes, and counts all irresponsible rhetoric from BOTH sides.

Well, I wouldn’t call direct statements from the criminals in jail anecdotal, but I guess you’ll see it the way you want to see it.
That was a nice long list of rhetorical examples you listed there, although one of those people is a communist, and lots of them are independents.
Now, if you could, please list the violent crimes that were perpetrated by extremists on the left as a result of all that rhetoric. I’ll wait for your reply.

Because that was the point I was trying to make with my last comment. I listed the violent and deadly crimes that were perpetrated by rightwing extremists that I knew had been directly fostered by over-the-top rightwing rhetoric via Fox News.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 1:40 AM
Comment #316868
Now, if you could, please list the violent crimes that were perpetrated by extremists on the left as a result of all that rhetoric. I’ll wait for your reply.

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/007373.html#316867

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 12, 2011 1:44 AM
Comment #316869

It’s called a “continous loop”.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 12, 2011 1:45 AM
Comment #316871

http://one-simple-idea.com/TheCheatersDialectic.htm


(1) Most people, naturally, seek security and prosperity with the least amount of effort and pain.
There is nothing wrong with that, and most people are ethical and law abiding (otherwise, we would have wide-spread chaos, war, lawlessness, and societal disorder).
However, some people (master cheaters and parasites) have surrendered to…,the original 7 deadly sins):
laziness, apathy, complacency, negligence, ignorance;
pride, hubris, arrogance, deception, self-delusion; misplaced loyalties, misplaced compassion, misplaced priorities (e.g. fueling and wallowing in partisan-warfare);
envy and jealousy, sometimes disguised as demands for equality;
greed, gluttony, lust for power and control, and exploitation of others and things (e.g. lawlessness, legal plunder, abuse of wealth, usury, wars, unfair taxation, etc.);
anger, hatred, irrational fear, fear mongering, intolerance, bigotry, prejudice of others and things (e.g. religion, race, gender, color, ethnicity, etc.);

Whoh! Dude! That’s more than 7! Put the brakes on that runaway train, Dude!

Cheaters will resort to unethical and/or illegal methods (to varying degrees). Especially when and where opportunity and Power exists.

http://one-simple-idea.com/TheCheatersDialectic.htm

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 12, 2011 2:09 AM
Comment #316874

Oh! Stephen Daugherty, did I misintrepret something?

Marysdude, am I nuts?

Can’t we get along without the federal government’s social programs?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 12, 2011 3:47 AM
Comment #316877
Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-S.C.) health care-era “you lie” interruption of President Obama is now reportedly being commemorated with a place on a new, limited edition line of assault rifle components. The Columbia Free Times reports that the words are being engraved on a series of lower receivers manufactured for popular AR-15 assault rifles. Lower receivers are one of the primary pieces of the firearms. “Palmetto State Armory would like to honor our esteemed congressman Joe Wilson with the release of our new ‘You Lie’ AR-15 lower receiver,” the weapon manufacturer’s site writes in the product description. “Only 999 of these will be produced, get yours before they are gone!”


Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2011 6:31 AM
Comment #316879

Adrienne, j2t2,

Try as you might, none of your attempts to politicize this tragedy are not convincing in the least, and most Americans polled aren’t convinced either (including most Democrats).

I’m not defending the irresponsible rhetoric from either extreme, nor trying to blame either extreme either.

I’m not a fan of FAUX News, CNN, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, Palin, McCain, or any politicians in either side of the duopoly, since few (if any) really care about the truth, and seem to care more about pushing their own extremist and political views (as some people are shamelessly also trying to do here).

j2t2 wrote: “Who shot President Ronald Reagan?” Not a liberal. “Who shot President John F. Kennedy?” Not a liberal, a communist. “Who shot President Abraham Lincoln?” Not a liberal. A confederate spy. Who shot President William McKinley? Not a liberal. An Anarchist. Who shot John Lennon? What! he isn’t a conservative representative of the people is he? And was Jared Lee Loughner a right-winger? Who knows. “Were those murders all by rightists?” No they weren’t not all of them, but what about the man from Arkansas last year {anecdotal}. I just don’t see the relevance between these people you mentioned and the past 20 years of hate radio D.A.N. {from BOTH sides}
j2t2,

Thank you. You just helped demonstrate that not all murders were by extremists from the right only.

And most Americans agree that irresponsible rhetoric was not the cause.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful. The logical and peaceful thing to do is to simply vote FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians out of office.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2011 9:04 AM
Comment #316880
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

The above is from Sarah Palin. She ignores that violent rhetoric contributes to the acceptance of violence as a solution to political problems. Her example of duels, etc. exemplifies that very thing. Violent rhetoric, and an influential platform with which to spit it, cannot lead to anything BUT violence…else why use it?

d.a.n.,

>And most Americans agree that irresponsible rhetoric was not the cause.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect.

Are you sure you wanted to place these two sentences in juxtaposition?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2011 9:34 AM
Comment #316889

“Thank you. You just helped demonstrate that not all murders were by extremists from the right only.”

Again D.A.N. I didn’t notice a liberal in the group of political murders the past century. In fact I didn’t notice a dem nor a liberal. In fact I didn’t notice any relevance to the hate radio of today and the names you mentioned.

“And most Americans agree that irresponsible rhetoric was not the cause”.

Of course irresponsible rhetoric is not the cause , I agree, I even agree that hate speech is not the primary cause of the current massacre. But to believe that hate radio may not have had an influence on people like this current shooter is missing the big picture.

The facts remain that since the upswing in hate speech on the right this past 10 years and in particular since our first bi-racial president was elected the victims of political murders have been liberals/dems, not repub/conservatives. SO far no one has been able to point out a dem/liberal of the past decade killing a conservative or for that matter anyone killing a conservative in a political motivated murder. Lop-sided it is D.A.N.

I stand by my previous statement until someone can show a politically motivated assault on a conservative during the Bush administration and forward. The fact is the far right wing is more violent, the hate speech more prevalent on the far right and some of the previous murders this past decade proves hate speech works on those with mental problems and provokes the attitudes that can lead to murder. The hate speech emanating from the far right allows for an atmosphere that can push people over the edge.

Defend it as you will but understand it is an accomplice to the political savagery that we see today. Hate radio is a propaganda tool, to think it is not useful is to ignore the facts. It serves no useful purpose but to acclimate the masses of listeners to the use of violence to perpetrate their cause.

Can anyone prove the same for the hate speech you see coming from the left? If this were civil court the split would be 80% conservative hate speech to 20% liberal hate speech and damages for the violence would be 100% conservative IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 12, 2011 11:01 AM
Comment #316896

Weary Willie-
Orwellian?

That adjective is used to describe language that pointedly tries to obfuscate the truth. If I had immediately said “It’s a Teabagger!”, and then tried to BS everybody that I had said something else, that would be Orwellian.

Instead, I admitted that I didn’t know who it was, and throughout I tried to keep current on the facts.

On the subject of Gold and Silver, that section talks about the powers, or rather lack of same, of the States. It does not lay any such restriction on the National government.

KAP-
Any time I try to hold Republicans accountable, you’re there saying both sides are equivalently bad. But are they? An Arizona Republican is quitting his post on account of the shooting. Is it liberals he’s afraid of? No.

I would also like to point out that Bill Maher is not a liberal. He would tell you this himself. He’s closer to being a libertarian.

And why is it that “hate speech” has suddenly become the subject? I didn’t write this about merely negative or insulting rhetoric. That wasn’t the crux of my actual argument. The crux of my argument was actual speech encouraging or justifying actual violence.

My argument is not based on exclusivity of this kind of language on one side or another. My argument is based on the notion that this rhetoric does not have a place in our civil discourse, and that those employing it, for their sake and everybody else’s, should quit using it, speak more responsibly.

All the rest of what the red column folks have written seems to be about either denying that Republicans ahve been doing more of this, or about attacking me for having challenged the right on this count.

It’s like I said at the start:

Is it really so hard to say the political equivalent of “I reject Satan and all his works?” Don’t waste your time trying to justify things by saying everybody’s doing it by trying to drag Democrats off their moral high ground. Don’t complicate it in such a way that you give aid and comfort to those who reject peaceful solutions to political problems, justifying their sense that they’re only responding in kind.

Reject political violence. Reject the statements of those who called for Second Amendment remedies, reject their impulses. It’s not hard for me to reject what William Ayers did three or four decades ago, to say he was wrong, to say those who supported such political violence were wrong, and that voicing an opinion in favor of such violent methods of political satisfaction is wrong. I can say that because that is my default assumption. The Framers indulged in all the political violence that was necessary to make us a free nation. The fist and the bludgeon and the gun and the knife have no place in our political forum.

Full stop, end of story, no ambiguity. One end or another, I condemn it. I know some of your red column folks will try to twist that into something, but that really is my sentiment. I believe in our Democracy implicitly. Persuasion, not force, is what America’s leaders should set opinions by, and no leader should be advocating political violence or the disruption of America’s law and order.

That’s been my message. You and others have politicized, it, tried to beat back any and and all criticism, rather than face the problem.

And what will be the result, with your having justified all this? Well, your people will continue to use the same rhetoric, and get away with it. People’s emotions will continue to run high, and at some point, some other idiot will employ violence. Will that be the time when you finally realize what a poison such rhetoric is to the long-term political health of a movement? Or will that, to, be another time where your people try to use false equivalences to avoid having to listening to anybody outside the party telling you to clean up your act?

Reject Satan and all this works. Reject violence. Reject rhetoric that promises violence over a disagreement in policy. I already do that, many Democrats do the same.

Why not do it yourself? Are you so afraid of being held to a double standard that you won’t hold yourself to a single one?

C&J-
Why so angry? You didn’t just have a member of your caucus SHOT. You seem afraid that people might hold your party accountable for creating an atmosphere where this kind of violence has become more common, or at least seems more imminent.

As for blood libel? God, this kind of stupidity spreads fast in your party, doesn’t it. Do you know the actual association that term has? That’s the accusation, made by bigoted Christians, that Jews put the blood of infants into their rituals.

Meanwhile, your party has been telling us that we want to kill babies, that we want to kill old people, that we want to destroy the economy, give the country over to Sharia law, give the country over to al-Qaeda, to the communists, the socialists, and (God Help us) The French.

I have heard enough libel and slander from your side to fill a library in the last decade. But you talk of “blood libel”. Poor Republicans. You get criticized for one thing, and you’re suffering just as badly as the Jews did in the ghettos.

The whole point of what I have written is that I want Republicans to start thinking about what they’re saying, what it’s effects could be, what it actually means. A party that spends half its time saying things that are foolish or regrettable, and then the other half trying to convince people they said nothing wrong, is a party that will rot at its core until it can stand no more.

I mean, Blood libel. I already heard about it. And you know what? It’s already struck the wrong chord with many people. You need to at least start repeating the words of people who are careful and wise about what they say, and leave the foolish BS to idiots like Palin. Quit digging yourself deeper, trying to be invincible to criticism.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 12:20 PM
Comment #316897
“Expanding the context of the attack to blame and to infringe upon the people’s Constitutional liberties is both dangerous and ignorant,” she said. “The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger.”

The immortal words of Sharon Angle.

She sees the irresponsibility of those who fear that vitriolic rhetoric is causing a loosening of our moral fiber, but then defends vitriolic rhetoric as though someone is attempting to disenfranchise the First Amendment.

None are so blind who cannot see…or who merely wants to cover her own sins by blaming those sins on others. Until and unless those on the right open their eyes to what is going on around them…get out of the hole they’ve dug themselves into…see the truth for what it is, we will continue this downward spiral into moral morass.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2011 12:44 PM
Comment #316899

j2t2, great posts in this thread — the last one especially.
You too, Stephen.

d.a.n.:

Try as you might, none of your attempts to politicize this tragedy are not convincing in the least,

Okay, I’ll quit trying then, but don’t trouble yourself over it, d.a.n. I haven’t found your arguments convincing either.

and most Americans polled aren’t convinced either (including most Democrats).

That’s a poll from a media outlet. Polls can frequently be skewed to reflect any opinion wanted by those with a vested interest in the outcome, in this case, the media itself. Since media outlets aren’t going to want to attach any accountability to themselves, and since they’ve been horribly lax in reporting on the level of vitriol and hate being perpetrated by the hatemongers on television and radio, I don’t buy that poll. I will be interested to see what polls from other polling organizations will say, however.

Dude:

The above is from Sarah Palin. She ignores that violent rhetoric contributes to the acceptance of violence as a solution to political problems. Her example of duels, etc. exemplifies that very thing. Violent rhetoric, and an influential platform with which to spit it, cannot lead to anything BUT violence…else why use it?

Seriously. But you just knew she had to put in a reference to dueling and pistols! What she seems to be saying is that we have to condemn violence — but that she intends to keep right on using the gun metaphors. That woman is such a lousy one trick pony.

Btw, a friend of mine sent me a sarcastically funny comment about that quote today:

Sarah Palin says on Facebook that anyone accusing her of using inflammatory political rhetoric should meet her tomorrow on the field at dawn!
Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 1:12 PM
Comment #316902
“Expanding the context of the attack to blame and to infringe upon the people’s Constitutional liberties is both dangerous and ignorant,” she said. “The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger.”

The immortal words of Sharon Angle……and who better than the one who espoused the use of Second Amendment actions….

Posted by: jane doe at January 12, 2011 1:20 PM
Comment #316903

I love Matthew Yglesias’ response to Sarah Palin:

Indeed, Jews throughout America can join me in remembering when our ancestors fled Eastern Europe in order to live in a land where nobody would ever criticize us on television.

Being criticized with your tone is not equivalent to being persecuted for your religious beliefs, vilified as murderers on absurd pretexts, or being blamed for the death of a world religion’s Lord and Savior.

Really, if the Right’s going to repeat what some person says, can they pick somebody who’s intelligent, who chooses their words well?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 1:22 PM
Comment #316905

First off Stephen if you were to read that I did google Hate speech from the left and right and found the speech repulsive from both sides. I have said and will hold to my view that both sides are equally to blame for their retoric, both sides spit venom and you or anyone of the other liberals writting on this blog will NOT convince me that Democrats are less to blame then Republicans. Maybe the Democrats in your little group in Texas are different and you can talk for them but not all Democrats. As far as holding a double standard IMO it is you that have a double standard and are writting with partician blinders. You seem to me when you defend Democrats are like the mother who always says NOT MY JOHNNY HE WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 1:35 PM
Comment #316911

KAP-
Look, I think you’re taking things from the wrong angle. You’re telling me that I have to say both sides are equally guilty. Why does it have to be equal? What’s the point?

I’ve already, though, said that I find any such kind of rhetoric to be irresponsible, undesirable, and indefensible. If you’re right, then I have held both sides, as you wish, equally responsible. If I am right, then I have held each side responsible to the true proportion of their guilt.

But either way, my approach is correct, because instead of trying to muddle around with a blame game, I’ve made a simple statement of principle about what is right and wrong.

Yours is only correct in the eventuality that the blame is equal.

And really, does my second post’s idea not also apply equally, when it comes to one side or another? If a Democrat says something that encourages or incites violence, does that not follow them to their door, as it would for the Republicans I listed?

Rather than indulge in a pointless debate about political correctness, I’ve focused on behavioral issues that are universally applicable, where your partisan orientation is irrelevant. I’ve simply told Republicans that if you let or encourage people to make statements like those folks I listed, or if you spend too much time apologizing for what those people said, you create an environment where the next politically related shooting gets laid on your doorstep, merely as a matter of people coming to an intuitive answer in their speculation of whose at fault.

It’s pointless to cry out about how unfair it is. That’s simply how people think.

But you’re going to get wrapped up in trying to assign equal blame, and lambasting me if I don’t agree. Question: why do you expect that to work?

Simply extend my comments to their logical conclusion, and if both sides are equally bad, I equally reject their wrongs. If not, my rejection applies to the extent the proportions squares them out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 2:08 PM
Comment #316914

Stephen simply put it is your one sided ideology that everything that goes wrong is the other parties fault. You NEVER accept blame for the wrongs of your party. You always fault the otherside even when it is clearly your parties screwup.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 2:23 PM
Comment #316920

“The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger.”

Really Sharon it seems it is just the opposite to me. It seems those that gather to talk with their constituents are the one’s in danger. It seems the tea party has been able to redress grievances just fine since Obama has been elected to office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKBa9K_vAm8

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/memo-details-co-ordinated-anti-reform-harrassment-strategy.php?page=1

Posted by: j2t2 at January 12, 2011 2:47 PM
Comment #316942

j2t2

Yes, Hinkley had no politics, just like the shooter in Oklahoma.

Stephen & others

Re blood libel - Of course I know where the term comes from and used it properly. When you need to correct my understanding of history, I will tell you.

I am angry when ignorant and malicious people use the victims of a terrible tragedy for their own political purposes.

An American politician was shot. You evidently are so partisan and lack so much understanding that all you see is a Democrat. I see an American and a human being. I am sorry that you guys are so craven. I am losing my faith in the debate when I see your hatred and ignorance.

Fortunately, the hateful liberal point of view seems to be enclosed in a incestuous and auto-erotic circle. You excite yourselves with your feeling of victimhood.

I am going to write a template on the other side, one that could be used by either side, you know, the kind of thing that a good American and human being would write. You guys are welcome to use it, although I am sure your hatred will blind you to it.

Listen carefully because this is the last time for this thread. You are essentially accusing people like me of encouraging political violence. I don’t take kindly to it. There is no connection between this killer and any conservative. You have not found one. Nobody has found one.

The hatred here is too think. I have no more pearls to cast in front of you all. This kind of stupidity doesn’t mer’t merit my attention. This debate is below me. You can respond if you want, but I will not be reading this thread again.

I feel sorry for you all, since hate consumes the person who holds it. This hatred will not work for you, BTW. We will still win the next elections.

Posted by: C&J at January 12, 2011 5:38 PM
Comment #316950

KAP-
So, your solution to my supposedly always saying something is your side’s fault is to reflexively say that it’s always both side’s fault?

C&J-
You do know that Rep. Gifford is Jewish, and was shot on the Shabbat?

I am angry with you here for insisting that I’m using the victims of this tragedy. I find that deeply insulting. You think I’m some sort of psychopath here?

I find what happened horrifying. This is my response to the horror. I couldn’t simply dismiss this act, when I first heard about it, as the act of a madman. That had to come out. Between then and there, I had to be concerned that the conflict between my party and yours had just taken an uglier turn. Why would I fear that? Well, I’ve laid it out. I’ve seen any number of terrible incidents, and heard any number of alarming statements coming from the Tea Partiers that convinced me that they were willing to go this far, that had me feeling, in the back of my mind, that it was only a matter of time.

This isn’t about hate. This is about genuine concern. This is about not wanting more blood in the streets.

You talk of “blood libel”. You do realize that the truth is a defense against libel, right? Your side has provided more than enough evidence to fairly concern somebody like me that greater violence was possible, perhaps inevitable.

By the simplest definition, your side talking about “death panels” is blood libel. Palin saying that Obama wanted to kill her son Trig was blood libel.

This? This is what you get when your people are reckless for years on end with their words and actions, and people make judgments based on their recollections.

That the leaders on the right would appropriate words used to describe the monstrous persecution of the Jews, and appeal to people’s sympathy based on them shows that the judgment of the right in its discourse has not improved. Quit trying to gain sympathy off of people for being held accountable for two years of irresponsible behavior. Take the criticisms in a mature manner for once.

Teenagers who can’t see past their own motivations and self-esteem argue this way, not adults who understand that words and actions have consequences. You have not been persecuted. You are not being stuffed into a ghetto or killed in pogroms over some monstrous lie. Your people are getting the criticism they deserve for the kinds of words and actions that deserve them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 6:12 PM
Comment #316954

C&J wrote:”Listen carefully because this is the last time for this thread. You are essentially accusing people like me of encouraging political violence. I don’t take kindly to it. There is no connection between this killer and any conservative. You have not found one. Nobody has found one.”

STILL just don’t get it, huh? Just can’t (ok, won’t) make that intellectual leap to understanding. I don’t hold you responsible for political violence. Only for trying to excuse violent/threatening speech. Big difference. BIG difference.

“There is no connection between this killer and any conservative (you very carefully do NOT say tea partier). Nobody has found one.” But you’re all up in arms because somebody would worry that speech laden with military/violent references could be construed to lead a disturbed person toward such behavior? Huh?

I sure will miss being the recipient of these great “pearls” you have deigned to cast before the likes of us, whom you admit you are above. OK!!!

Posted by: steve miller at January 12, 2011 6:41 PM
Comment #316956

Stephen, I have yet to read anything by you concerning democratic misdeeds. But you sure do find fault with the other party quite a bit. People read things that come from both sides of the fence. Radicals from the left read the things you write against those on the right and may do the same thing that the loon in Az. did. Any lunatic from either side who listens to the idiots on Fox or MSNBC is capable of doing what the Az. shooter did. Case point Krugman’s article blameing the right for the hate retoric. Don’t you think some lunatic from the left might decide to go out on a shooting spree after reading that? Another point Kim Sue, a left wing nut job who got banned from commenting on WB wanting to kill Bush. Her retoric was off the charts. Both sides need to watch what they say and write. That’s why I say both sides are equally responsible.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 6:50 PM
Comment #317004

KAP,

Kim Sue had this tiny voice. It was heard by a few, and then silenced.

Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Angle, Coulter, O’Reiley, Murdock, Ailes, et al, have the voice to transmit repeated lies, distortions, and violent rhetoric to millions.

The evil in both voices is equal, but the equality stops there.

If this is a contest on who can spew the most hate, you are right, but the hate that effects America in the most heinous ways is hands down one sided.

Conservatives win again, just like they did in ‘94, in 2001, and again last November. Just like the ‘win’ last November, there are consequences to ‘winning’. If the object of winning is to destroy the good about America, you’re on the right side. It requires vision and understanding to figure out where this contest is heading. None are so blind…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 13, 2011 5:57 AM
Comment #317009

KAP-
You cannot truly read what I have written, and conclude that I would ever advocate violence against my political rivals. I have always expressed the opinion that people must be allowed to have their say, though I also emphasize the responsibility they bear for what they say.

Political violence is only necessary where the system has so broken down, that only in the use of violence can they safeguard their freedoms and their lives. Some look at a situation where they have lost an election, where their party was at the nadir of its power, and in their desperation believe that time is at hand.

But I can tell them, from bitter personal experience, that it’s not. After all, I was a Democrat from 2004-2006. I wonder, if my people had embraced political violence, based on their desperation, would we have had the power we did for the last four years? The game, the competition never ends in a Democracy, and the last decade is a case study in this.

I find it sad that so many on the right lost faith so quickly in democracy, in peaceful discourse. It’s no happier a thing to have a Democrat do so, either.

If you take me at my word, if you read what I actually say, those will be the sentiments you will see from me. I don’t criticize the rhetoric from the right out of the instinct to cripple them competitively, while my side moves in and does the same thing. No, I don’t want my people undermining their credibility by doing so, and I don’t want my people relying on intimidation.

Understand this as well: I take my side, voice my concerns. I don’t feel it’s my job to take your side for you. I can admit to my party’s errors, but I don’t particularly see the value in trying to match the right’s endless flood of negativity about it, or joining you in drawing equivalences I think are false.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2011 10:24 AM
Comment #317010
Rush Limbaugh is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet, but we’ll be there to watch. —
Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, Oct. 13, 2009.

So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” —
Montel Williams talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Air America’s Montel Across America, Sept. 2, 2009.
He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country…. You know, Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.
— Ed Schultz, The Ed Schultz Show, May 11, 2009.
I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” —
Radio host Mike Malloy on the Jan. 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show.
I’m just saying if he [Dick Cheney] did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact. —
Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, Mar. 2, 2007,

After then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) said that the federal government was spending too much money on AIDS, National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg, on the July 8, 1995 edition of Inside Washington, said, “I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.
NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg.


On the Nov. 4, 1994 edition of PBS’s To the Contrary, then-USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux said of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 11:10 AM
Comment #317011

Wanda Sykes, “Maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight… . I hope his kidneys fail.”


Bill Maher, “Wouldn’t it be fun to kill the people we disagree with.”


Rev. Al Sharpton, “George Bush giving tax cuts is like Jim Jones giving Kool-Aid. It tastes good but it’ll kill you.”


Sen. John Kerry, “Being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order in this country.


Howard Dean, “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.”


Alan Grayson, “If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 11:29 AM
Comment #317017

Weary Willie-
I’ve already said that I don’t support rhetoric that incites people to violence. I think rhetoric that wishes ill on people is, while less objectionable, in poor taste.

I think, though, that it’s stretching things to object to Kerry’s Tony Soprano comparison. It is apt, given Bush’s record on fiscal matters, and it isn’t even directly comparing him to the gangster.

Similarly, Al Sharpton’s comment isn’t saying that members of the GOP should drink cyanide laced Kool-aid. He merely states that the tax cuts are as wise as such a drink.

Maher? Maher is an abrasive, sarcastic, equal opportunity cynic, a comedian who hosted a show called “Politically Incorrect.” Saying obnoxious things, forbidden things is his stock in trade. He and Wanda Sykes are actual entertainers, not merely commentators who took up that label to avoid being held accountable for what they said. Being offended by them is not only pointless, they’d probably enjoy the fact.

Now, if you’re trying to prove that some people make harsh comparisons, you’ve done so. If you’re trying to prove to me that some comics voice people’s forbidden desires, well, you’ve succeeded. If you’re trying prove to me that some Democrats are as unwise in their choice of words, as partisan in their language as the Republicans… well, congratulations.

If you’re trying to convince me that the right hasn’t done all that and worse? No. If the people above are wrong, Then all that means is that many on the right are wrong with a little more company. The problem with this brand of argument is that it’s often used to shut people up by getting in the way of their righteous claims about their party.

But this which I write relates little to who the worse party is. This isn’t about defensiveness towards hate speech. This is about asking people to forsake and reject language that evokes armed responses if the political demands of one’s group ar not met. I believe this kind of blood in the streets rhetoric is wrong for both sides, any sides in a political forum like we have.

There’s no point to your trying to deflect this into a debate on the hypocrisy of the left. The message is meant for everybody, at the end of the day.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2011 12:46 PM
Comment #317018

I’m only trying to get a yes or no answer from you to the question:
Is the Democratic Party complicit in creating this toxic enviroment?

Yes or no, Stephen Daugherty?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 1:00 PM
Comment #317019

Repeat after me Stephen Daugherty.

The Democratic Party shares the blame.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 1:01 PM
Comment #317023

Weary Willie-
I would advise all people to take heed of the lesson. ALL. Blame is irrelevant, when the vulnerability of each and everyone of us to such politics is acknowledged.

What you are really concerned about here is that the tide has turned against the tolerance of such rhetoric, and your side put out a lot of it.

And guess what? Many of your newest rising stars are people who depended on such heightened, harsh, paranoid rhetoric. So your leaders are worried that if such Rhetoric becomes unfashionable, and you don’t have the blame spread equally, it might become a disadvantage.

I say, consistent with my principles, that it deserves to be a disadvantage. I’m not going to help you offload the individual responsibility, or the organizational
responsibility of those who should have known better than to talk of death panels and trash like that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2011 1:38 PM
Comment #317028

Stephen, I never said you would advocate violence, but there are people out in the world who read what is written on these blogs, because they are public domain. Some writer tearing down either a right winger or left winger then some unstable person reads the article and does violence to which ever group. This can even apply to the MSM.
Dude, again you forgot Matthews, Shultz, Olberman, Maddow,and Krugman

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 2:03 PM
Comment #317029

I didn’t think so.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 2:04 PM
Comment #317036

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/13/coach-leave-obama-comments/

It’s a little irritating to be honest,” he said. “I think it’s kind of ridiculous that the school is pretty much saying you can’t voice your opinion and if you do voice your opinion you definitely can’t voice it against the policies of the president.”

For more on this story, visit http://radio.foxnews.com/category/todd-starnes/

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 2:58 PM
Comment #317038

“Stephen, I never said you would advocate violence, but there are people out in the world who read what is written on these blogs, because they are public domain. Some writer tearing down either a right winger or left winger then some unstable person reads the article and does violence to which ever group. This can even apply to the MSM.
Dude, again you forgot Matthews, Shultz, Olberman, Maddow,and Krugman”

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 02:03 PMY

KAP,
That’s it!!!! You get the gold medal!!!! This is exactly what (and all) we have been telling you. I KNEW that you really did understand . No one is saying that the left side doesn’t have it’s haters & violent-sounding bozos; we DO say that your side has demonstrably more OF ‘em. And that thoser on EITHER side who speak thusly are risking tipping an unstable person. But I do thank you for so succinctly making our side’s argument in your post. Way to go!!!

Posted by: steve miller at January 13, 2011 3:08 PM
Comment #317039

KAP,

“again you forgot Matthews, Shultz, Olberman, Maddow,and Krugman”

Didn’t you guys deem these people irrelevant just a few months ago?

Willie,

Do you really want to quote a UFC fighter?

Really?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 13, 2011 3:09 PM
Comment #317047

KAP,

Go back over the thread again please. I told you that if it was important to you, I’d throw those in, just to make you happy. I talk about the ‘voice’ of hate and negativity coming from people who have influence over millions, and you come back with a list of folks you’ve already downgraded to insignificance because they don’t have a tenth of the following of your heroes. Have at ‘em. I’m pretty sure they spew more facts and truth than your guys, and that it is better researched, but include them at your discretion, and I’ll go along for the ride.

I’ll promise right here, right now, that if you will write to those on the right that I have mentioned, and ask them to please tone it down, I’ll do the same to those you’ve mentioned to me. Just give me that assurance.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 13, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment #317049

Rocky and Dude, your right these guys are irrelevant but they are still on the air. Dude I agree both Fox and MSNBC need to reign in their commentators the retoric is getting rediculous.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 4:02 PM
Comment #317051

KAP,

“…your right these guys are irrelevant but they are still on the air.”

Just to play devils advocate here.

How can you declare someone to be irrelevant, yet still use them to make your point?

It would seem to me that relevance would be important if you want to assign blame to someone, which it appears you are.

Just thinking…

Oh, and BTW, I never commented on whether I judged these people relevant or not, so any judgement you pass on these people is your words not mine.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 13, 2011 4:42 PM
Comment #317055

KAP,

If the commentators on MSNBC are not relevant, why should they be asked to tone it down?

Even though they are irrelevant, I’ll still write to each of those you mentioned, if you will do the same to those I’ve mentioned. All you need to do to get me started writing is to agree to ask your people to tone it down.

If you agree, I’ll post my letter here, with all the addresses or email information I can gather, and you can copy it and send it yourself. You write your letter and provide the same information to me so that I can copy it and send it out.

Stephen,

Would any of what I’ve suggested here be against any WB rule?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 13, 2011 5:22 PM
Comment #317056

Willie-
The guy made a comment saying he’d like to knock some sense into Obama. Really.

Are we simply not learning the lesson? Yes, you make comments like that, especially with the volume of threats out there agaisnt Obama, you are risking a visit.

Also, are you aware of the fact that he’s since apologized for the comment?

It’s not a bad thing to learn regret, to learn shame. There are plenty of ways to critique a policy without letting rage be what gives your comment its strength.

KAP-
Mere negative opinions are not what I’m taking issue with. That utterly misses the point. I’ve delivered plenty of negative opinions, but I don’t even joke, much less seriously talk about it being right to harm others or harm government officials or law enforcement agents over such political disagreements. Second Amendment solutions for me are for when democracy has so seriously broken down that there’s literally no other means available. And I believe that’s far from having occurred.

To give you an idea of how bad I would judge things would have to get, look at the Bush Administration. It would have to get ten times worse than that. Worse than the sixties. Before then, I would still push for civil methods.

I value the integrity of our Democracy more than I do the success of my party.

Now I can’t keep some nut from reading my work and going “I’m going to shoot somebody”. But that’s going to be their nutballitude at work. My work is going to say: “The are big problems that pose a problem or a threat for our country. We need to unite in a peaceful, political solution to this problem, and persuade people by reason, not force.”

People are going to be able to tell the difference between me and the nut.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2011 5:32 PM
Comment #317064

Dude, I’d be writting to the same guys you listen to except for O’Riely, I like his show. Most of the time I get news from the daytime commentators from CNN, Fox and MSNBC. So I will tell O’Riely to cool his jets and even write Schultz to tell him and Maddow the same Olbermann and Beck I don’t bother with and can’t stand Rush, I’ll include Matthews in that e mailing.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment #317070
Willie,

Do you really want to quote a UFC fighter?

Really?

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 13, 2011 03:09 PM

What are you implying, Rocky Marks? Is there something adherently wrong with UFC fighters that makes you reject their opinion? That’s what your comment suggests. Your comment suggests UFC fighters shouldn’t be listened to, UFC fighers have no standing.

Did you watch the interview, Rocky Marks?

Willie- The guy made a comment saying he’d like to knock some sense into Obama. Really.

Are we simply not learning the lesson? Yes, you make comments like that, especially with the volume of threats out there agaisnt Obama, you are risking a visit.

Also, are you aware of the fact that he’s since apologized for the comment?

It’s not a bad thing to learn regret, to learn shame. There are plenty of ways to critique a policy without letting rage be what gives your comment its strength.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2011 05:32 PM

Stephen Daugherty, I don’t have the time or the inclination to retrieve your and others posts about how Andrew Brietbart was chastised for taking comments out of context. Did you watch the interview?


Also, are you aware of the fact that he’s since apologized for the comment?

I would apologize too if the secret service showed up at my house! I would apologize profusely if I lost my job and am going thru an investigation! Where’s the balance between this contrived and supposed threat and the reaction to this supposed threat?

How was Obama intimidated by this UFC fighter? Just watching this interview would point out this was not a threat, but an opportunity to stand up for himself and his business. Again the health care debate comes into view! Again someone speaking out against the health care law is being persicuted for his point of view. Didn’t your dad ever say he was going to knock some sense into you? Just because you put Obama on a pedestal doesn’t mean everyone else must also.

I truly simpathize with this UFC fighter for what he must endure for talking plain american. He saw an opportunity, at a sporting event that appears not to be affiliated with his employer, to stand up for himself and his chiropractor business and he is threatened by the secret service and his employer.

The article mentions “several people”. Why isn’t the UFC fighter allowed to face his accusers? The response by his employer was to shoot first and ask questions later. This response was instigated, supposedly by “several people”, who objected to his words! How American is that?

“He said something I didn’t like! I’m going to make a phone call and the Secret Service will take care of him! He’ll lose his job! He’ll have to pay a lawyer to defend himself! He’ll have to endure the constant questions and exclamations and ridicule when he is recognized on the street. He’ll have to deal with crazy people face to face now because I didn’t like what he said! He’s going to answer for what he said!”

Also, are you aware of the fact that he’s since apologized for the comment?

Yea, Stephen Daugherty, and that makes it ok in your mind, doesn’t it?

You, Sir, should take your own words to heart:

It’s not a bad thing to learn regret, to learn shame.

Indeed, Stephen Daugherty! Your party is not always right!

There are plenty of ways to critique a policy without letting rage be what gives your comment its strength.

Where was the rage in this interview, Stephen Daugherty? Where is the rage, Stephen Daugherty? I recently read a comment from you expressing your “anger”. This was your word used to describe your emotion to what others were trying to say. Why aren’t you being visited by local law enforcement? Why aren’t you being fired from your job? You admitted you were angry! Haven’t you heard anger is wrong, Stephen Daugherty?

No, you and yours are exempt. You and yours are excused. Perhaps because you and yours think you are always right and you and yours can’t do anything wrong. You and yours will sit in your bubble and pass judgement on those who disagree. That’s what you and yours call Democratic discourse, Stephen Daugherty.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 9:48 PM
Comment #317072

Stephen Daugherty, now it’s a tragic accident!

I can’t blame you for this dumb statement. This lays at the feet of the citizens of Pelosi’s district. They should be the ones who suffer this ignorant person’s words, not the rest of us.

Do they write bills using words like this? No wonder nobody reads them.


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 10:18 PM
Comment #317073

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4496910/pelosi-calls-tucson-murders-a-tragic-accident-/

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 10:20 PM
Comment #317074

But she meant to say…..

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 10:22 PM
Comment #317076

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/13/palin-targeted-tweets-following-arizona-shooting-massacre/?test=latestnews


Pretty soon the FBI will have an office at twitter, and facebook, and WatchBlog, that will monitor posts that say stupid stuff because stupid stuff can lead to violence.

Who needs net neutrality when the FBI is visiting everyone’s house?
The IRS has 16,000 more people, maybe the FBI could keep them busy busting down doors to ask why someone said what they said?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 13, 2011 10:42 PM
Comment #317079

Willie

“What are you implying, Rocky Marks? Is there something adherently wrong with UFC fighters that makes you reject their opinion? That’s what your comment suggests. Your comment suggests UFC fighters shouldn’t be listened to, UFC fighers have no standing.”

Yep, I’d say you pretty much summed it up. Yeah, that’s right, I have absolutely no respect for someone that “fights” inside a cage.

BTW, The President doesn’t get to pick and choose who gets to be investigated if there is a threat, that’s the job of the Secret Service.

That’s a fact anybody should know, including a UFC fighter.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 13, 2011 10:57 PM
Comment #317083

That’s a fact anybody who lives in a totalitarian state should know.
Do you have any respect for a chiropractor and a business owner, Rocky Marks? Or just only those who agree with you?

You’ve shown your colors, Rocky Marks. I had no idea they were so ignorant.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2011 12:09 AM
Comment #317084

Weary Willie-
He was unrepentant about it, even after the Secret Service visit. It took the violence in Tuscon to make him reconsider, but reconsider he did, to his credit. In fact, I’m going to make a post soon that starts with his good example.

As for Breitbart, I’ve been far kinder than he ever was. I showed the man’s redemption, rather than dwell on his wrong. Breitbart, or at least his proteges, have a nasty habit of editing out the information that redeems people of their apparent sins.

As for a UFC fighter intimidating Obama? It’s not a matter of what Obama personally felt. It was an entertainer, Actor John Wilkes Booth, let me remind you, who shot Lincoln. Now, actors were not so highly regarded in those days, so your argument that Obama should not be intimidated by a mere UFC athlete betrays a lack of perspective on history. It doesn’t take a great, notable, or even very skilled man to kill a President.

You’re making it out to be some sneaky kind of censorship.

That seems to illustrate the depths of paranoia in your argument, really. Secret Service agents take all threats to the Presidents seriously. For you, the reason he must have said he was sorry would be a visit from the Secret Service.

Why are Tea Partiers or other conservative commentators exempt from things like, you don’t threaten the President of the United States. Just like you don’t make a joke about having a bomb to the person doing security. You’re not privileged from having to answer for what you say and do.

Rather than saying my people are exempt, far from it: if somebody threatened to kill President Bush, I would report it. Why? Because that’s the law, and I believe it applies to me. I’m not just here to satisfy my law all to myself. As an American citizen, I am ruled by the laws of the land, and I take them seriously, and do not put my politics above those laws.

There are plenty of ways to criticize and express anger towards the President without threatening him with a knock to the head. You know, it’s been the standard law for as long as I remember, that if you threaten President, you’ll get a visit from the Secret service. I didn’t know there was an exemption for conservatives. Why don’t you folks have to live with the consequences of what you say? How can you actually claim to be the victim here. He did something wrong. He got the standard visit for it. If that intimidated him, well, I don’t object to people making threats against the President being intimidated. It kind of goes with the territory, and I hope that the Secret Service puts the fear of God into any fool stupid enough to threaten the President.

I want you folks to live by the rules the rest of us do. None of that martyr stuff, none of that cult of victimhood alleging profound persecution just for the fact that people aren’t giving you a break on the controversies. Tuscon shows us what real victims look like. They aren’t the Tea partiers.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2011 12:20 AM
Comment #317085

Stephen Daugherty, you either don’t listen to what you say or you feel you have to insult my intelegence to make your point. Considering this “environment” I won’t think you’re insulting my inteligence, so the other option is that you don’t listen to what you say.

What did the UFC fighter say to the reporter?

Give me the quote, Stephen Daugherty. Quote the man and tell me it was a threat to kill the president.

You are really grasping at straws on this one, Stephen Daugherty.

It doesn’t take a great, notable, or even very skilled man to kill a President.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2011 12:20 AM
Secret Service agents take all threats to the Presidents seriously.

They must be really bored to have the time to manufacture a threat out of this interview, Stephen Daugherty.

Maybe Democratics should create jobs by manufacturing a thicker skin instead of creating jobs to force the American people to bend to their will.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2011 12:39 AM
Comment #317086

Oh, wait! They’re doing that already!

Republican Dan Burton wants to enclose the house chamber in plexiglass! Screw the senate!

Yea, he’s a Republican, but he probably saw all the tweets wanting Sarah Palin dead and got freaked out!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2011 1:00 AM
Comment #317087
He was unrepentant about it, even after the Secret Service visit. It took the violence in Tuscon to make him reconsider, but reconsider he did, to his credit.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2011 12:20 AM


Your credibility relies on the timeline you will provide to support this statement, Stephen Daugherty.

You say he was unrepentant until now. Document the timeline that verifies your comment!


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2011 1:12 AM
Comment #317088

Are you sure there was an uproar on Jan. 2 when this interview was done? Was this guy beligerant to the uproar resulting from his statement? Was he combative, as you suggest, up until Jan. 8? Was it then he repented?

Or did he say this on Jan. 2 and ……
And then this tragedy/accident happened on Jan 8….
and it was Jan. 13 when someone dug this video out and made a big deal about it?

You fill in the blanks, Stephen Daugherty, since you know what this UFC fighter was thinking throughout these last 2 weeks.

When was this guy suspended from his job?
When was this guy visited by the Secret Service?

You fill in the blanks, Stephen Daugherty.
With dates and names and positions.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2011 1:36 AM
Comment #317089
As for Breitbart, I’ve been far kinder than he ever was. I showed the man’s redemption, rather than dwell on his wrong.

Then why don’t you condemn your party for villifying him?

It’s easy for you to pummell your political oponents right up until they are found innocent. Then you immediately come out with crap like the statement above. A statement that justifies your position in your mind only.

You showed the man’s redemption, Stephen Daugherty? I missed that. Maybe you chastized him in a way that made you feel justified about chastizing him. That’s more your style.

Let’s see those quotes, Stephen Daugherty. Let’s see the quotes that redeme Andrew Breitbart.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2011 2:05 AM
Comment #317090

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/13/2011-01-13_jacob_volkmann_ufc_fighter_i_regret_threatening_obama_in_light_of_tucson_arizona.html?r=news/politics

After the encounter (Volkmann claimed the Secret Service agent apologized for the unnecessary visit)

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2011 2:24 AM
Comment #317091

Let’s see..What else?

I want you folks to live by the rules the rest of us do.


Give me a fricken’ break, Stephen Daugherty! I want you folks to live by the rules the rest of Us do!

That means your Democratic Party members work for minimum wage like we do!

That means your Democratic Party members figures out how to get insurance for health care like we do!

That means your Democratic Party members feels the effects of your economic policies like we do!

That means your Democratic Party members get felt up at airport terminals like we do!

That means your Democratic Party members find out what it’s like to live in the world they insist we live in!

Are you ready to do that, Stephen Daugherty? Are your people ready to live under the rules we live under?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2011 2:53 AM
Comment #317099

The only way to defeat a Democratic is to get in the last word!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2011 6:44 AM
Comment #317100

Comment #310766
This thread is no longer civil. If anyone wants to address these issues on a personal level they are welcome to email me.

I am closing this thread.

Posted by: Cameron Barrett at October 20, 2010 12:52 PM

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2011 7:01 AM
Comment #317115

Weary Willie-
If your way to defeat “Democratics” is to get in the last word, you’ve picked a lousy way to win. You’re defeated on the next response, and you can never, until the comments are closed, actually win. Any victory that requires that you remain forever isn’t a victory, it’s a defeat drug out.

And really, unless you’ve got the facts on your side, you lose anyways, no matter how high the pile of digested plant matter is.

You ask for a timeline? Here goes.

He made the remarks on or before January 4th. Likely before.

The story about the interview comes out the 5th.

The shooting occurs on the 8th.

He apologizes sometime between then, and the 15th.

He was still talking about it unrepentantly before the shooting. After the shooting, he changed his mind.

There, I’ve documented the timeline. As for knowing what he was thinking? Well, in the absolute sense of things, you can’t. But in the relative fashion of the real world, you can tell what peoples thought might be because they say and write them!

One detail I found significant was his mention of his daughter and son. That to me would square with the death of the youngest of the shooting victims affecting him, just as Obama was probably affected more, thanks to the fact that he has two daughters.

People aren’t machines, and they shouldn’t be. They shouldn’t bulldoze onwards without regards to other folks. Volkmann has seen why the Secret Service has to take such threats seriously, and maybe you should, too, because this issue isn’t all about how persecuted your people feel, despite what you might think.

The Secret Service is paid to be thorough about such things. They have to look into threats on the President regardless of who it comes from. John Wilkes Booth was a well-known actor in his day. Volkmann is a somewhat notable fighter. Even if they know it’s nothing, they look into it anyways. Why? Well, Booth tells you why: because sometimes the implausible threat, the threat you don’t take seriously, becomes real. Who would have thought that such a well-regarded actor, with so much to lose, would try and kill the President?

You, or somebody else keeps saying that assumption is the mother of all ****-up. Well, have you considered how many assumptions you’re making here about the potential for trouble here? At the very least you want people to know that you don’t even make an idle threat against the President without drawing attention to yourself. That protects the President I like. It will protect any President you like.

You got to quit seeing everything through the paranoia of your movement. This egocentrism in the movement is a problem. Look at Palin’s response, how it ended up seeming so small and self-absorbed. She was only intent on addressing her critics, settling the score with them. She did not realize, so deep in her adversarial sense of things as she was, that there was a larger issue than her own greivances over being lambasted over her provocative language, graphics, and behavior.

Obama, on the other hand, did not sink to that level, but instead elevated the debate by giving it a motivation beyond simple partisan politics. He understood that people were not trying to answer questions about how put-upon he was feeling, but rather were trying to deal with this shocking tragedy.

This is what separates, I think, healthy politics from pathological politics. Healthy politics deals with the world as if it works and operates beyond politics. Pathological politics filters a person’s interactions with the world through the politics first, often skewing the perceptions towards the egocentric pursuit of political goals, even at the expense of the good and wellbeing of the country and its citizens. Those interests are regarded as being things that will be taken care of, once the politics itself has been taken care of.

As for Breitbart? Breitbart has repeatedly shown a willingness to run material that is as inflammatory as it is incomplete. A real editor or real manager would make damn sure his reporters weren’t holding back when they made their reports, but Breitbart seems too reckless at the very least to care, if he wasn’t in on the deceptions to begin with. He ruined a woman’s career by running the video he did, yet you think he’s the victim.

That, unfortunately, seems to be the pattern on the right these days. They can attack, excoriate, accuse, and defame regardless of the facts, but when they get criticized for hurting people, they’re the victims.

Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

As for closing the thread? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way here for you, either. Why don’t you have confidence in your material enough not to resort to such cheap tricks?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2011 11:15 AM
Comment #317120

Stephen:

I want you folks to live by the rules the rest of us do. None of that martyr stuff, none of that cult of victimhood alleging profound persecution just for the fact that people aren’t giving you a break on the controversies. Tuscon shows us what real victims look like. They aren’t the Tea partiers.

Someone really should have sent a memo about this to Sarah Palin before she made her recent Facebook video. Even following a horrific tragegy like this, the pit bull once again decided to put on her lipstick for a “lock and load” display of raging narcissism and phony victimhood.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 14, 2011 12:41 PM
Comment #317130

But then, Adrienne, someone would have had to be on hand to read and explain it to her. The woman is dense!! She either was not raised with common sense and basic emotional understanding, or all that cold doesn’t allow it to flow normally.
Most women could kill in a second if it were to protect their children or other loved ones. This pit bull just seems to get an inordinate thrill with killing. There seems to be that blood-lust that throws her keenly into it.
She is cold, uncaring and completely insensitive!!

Posted by: jane doe at January 14, 2011 2:15 PM
Comment #317148

Deleted. Personal attacks are not allowed, as per comment rules.

Posted by: Jeff at January 14, 2011 6:13 PM
Comment #317152

Jeff, Your a fine example of the left LOL.

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2011 6:52 PM
Comment #317159

It’s pretty obvious in this thread what willie he may be referring to.

Posted by: jane doe at January 14, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment #317189

I’ll try again to see if I can have the last word.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 15, 2011 11:50 AM
Comment #317190

Weary Willie-
Be my guest. First amendment includes the freedom to have silly ideas and do silly things. Get your last word, and watch for the people come over to your side in droves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2011 12:12 PM
Comment #317193

Thanks for allowing me to have the last word, Stephen Daugherty.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 15, 2011 1:11 PM
Comment #317338

And, your last word is Daugherty?

You certainly wowed ‘em…(:~))

Posted by: Marysdude at January 17, 2011 8:42 AM
Comment #317579

You couldn’t resist, Marysdude!

No, you couldn’t resist! You had to have the last word.

I deny Marysdude the last word while I stick out my tongue and stick my thumbs in my ears and turn my outstretched fingers back and forth…

and fart…


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 20, 2011 1:51 AM
Post a comment