Democrats & Liberals Archives

Etching the Pathways

Causation? Not necessarily. Folks like Jared Loughner were going crazy and attacking people before things got this nuts in politics. Association? Not necessarily. The news I hear is that Loughner was a registered independent who didn’t even vote in the last election. The thing is, and the reason why most liberals said “Oh God, it’s a tea-bagger that did this.” is that when you beat a path to justifying a certain idea, the world is going to think of you first when somebody walks that path.

Though I don't completely agree with Stewart here, I think his point of view is worth considering, especially this part:

I do think it's a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with enemies, if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction between the manifestos of paranoid madmen, and what passes for acceptable political and pundit-speak. You know, it would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV. (applause) Let's at least make troubled individuals easier to spot.

I must confess an intense political rivalry with my counterparts on the right. Simple as that. I do believe that the policies of the Republicans are dangerous and wrong, and that some on the right are putting themselves in opposition to the values of this country.

But I would qualify that in two ways. First, obviously they don't think this way themselves.

And second, I think its worth saying that short of these people actually carrying out their overheated rhetoric, and threatening their fellow American with real harm at the point of a gun, or the end of their fist, short of them actually trying to carry out the secession of a state, the proper response is made through debate and response according to the constitutionally constrained rule of law. The alternative to that is a cure that is just as bad, if not worse, than the disease.

Within that limitation, though, I feel free to say to Republicans who talk about second amendment remedies that they should hold their tongues. I can only ask. I can't and won't force them not to speak, that being their right to decide for themselves, but I can speak up, thanks to my free speech rights, and say that such rhetoric is wrong, and should not be uttered.

Now some have come around and submitted some very selective quotes of President Obama using pugilistic rhetoric. He says things like "hit back twice as hard," that he's looking for whose ass to kick, that he's going to bring a gun to the political knifefight. And they, in their outrage say that this is equivalent, and that they shouldn't take flack for it.

The question is what the audience understood him to mean. When something goes wrong in government, and I say "Somebody's ass needs to be kicked for this," what do people understand me to mean? That I literally want that person to be found and beaten? Or that I just want the person responsible to suffer the consequences of the fiasco, like getting fired, getting censured, so on and so forth.

When I say I'm going to hit back twice as hard, I'm not saying that I'll be throwing a fist at anybody at double speed. Heck, am I even talking about a literal punch from them in the first place? No, I'm simply saying that I will aim to make more of an impact than they did with my response.

There's a difference between using language that has... well, "punch", and talking about things like a second amendment remedy. Punchy language, words that have their origins in military and martial arts terms, is commonly used in competitive arenas, especially in the political arena. The point would be is that it is understood for what it is.

A person talking about a second amendment remedy is a person talking about a remedy that employs the subject of the Second amendment: the use of arms against the government and the enforcers of its laws.

That is the idea. The idea, carried out, will have a much different result than if Obama carries out the idea behind "finding whose ass to kick.". You will not see the president comically chasing around an oil executive in front of their house, literally trying to land a kick. much less see him beating the crap out of them. But if those who listen to Sharron Angle carry out their second amendment remedy, there may very well be bodies going to a morgue. If somebody misinterprets what she said about Harry Reid, the body could be that of a United States Senator.

That is the fear that such rhetoric naturally encourages. The physical attack on the protestor at the Rand Paul event, the carrying of weapons outside of the Presidential event a while back, the perpetual fear-mongering that seems to encourage people to circumvent normal, legal remedies and take the law into their own hands... You don't need a media with liberal bias to make this seems scary to many Americans. The Tea Partiers need to realize that what they see as messages to show how strong and aggressive they are, messages meant to assert their rights, are coming across as ominous threats for others and to others.

That is why this man, Jared Loughner gets confused with a Tea Partier, if he indeed isn't one. He carried out the threatening impulse that Tea Partiers are loath to admit exists in their rhetoric. He attempted to apply a second Amendment solution to Rep. Gifford. The raw, exposed nerve endings left by months worth of disturbing, hostile rhetoric and behavior from the Right, needed only one nerve to be struck in order for people to quickly jump to the conclusion they did.

The feeling already was, "If this keeps up, somebody's going to get killed, or something awful's going to happen."

It's not a lie for me to say this. There have been a number of nuts who have, it seems, taken the lead of those folks on air, and sought out the enemies of civilization, of capitalism, of whatever else. Rather than simply be the armchair soldiers of a legal, if misguided voting booth revolution, they decided to take what was said at face value. People already died, or found themselves at risk.

Do I think most Tea Partiers reject that? I do. But I think they let themselves get carried away on the rhetoric and the emotion of what they're saying, and thanks to the fact that the conservative movement sees constraints on rhetoric as politically correct censorship, they don't rein in the recklessness. Long term, the concern is that the rhetoric carries them into policy territory that they wouldn't normally go, if they sat down and thought about it, or studied the question. Short-term, though, the concern is that people are saying things without fully considering where the logic of what they say leads.

Either way, there's concern to be had. On one hand, at the most innocuous end of the spectrum, you're only setting up the folks whose fervency you inspire up to be disappointed. But at the less innocuous end, you're really setting yourself up to make the unthinkable thinkable, to shift the window of acceptable behavior in a direction it really ought not to go.

That is my worry. When we rationalize racist statements, we rationalize racism to a certain extent, normalize it among our people. When we rationalize statements that make a whole religion suspect, we rationalize prejudice against them, and mistreatment from that. When we rationalize the rhetoric of political violence, we rationalize the idea of political violence with it. We set the pathway of our behavior towards that.

We have to be careful what we justify, and the degree to which we justify it. We have to be careful what we construct when we build the frameworks of our beliefs, and our beliefs are built both on what we permit and what we deny.

The myth in modern times is that we are at our most honest when we don't inhibit or censor ourselves. Me? I think that's a path to imbalance. inhibition is a natural part of us, a natural process for us. We can be excessively inhibited, true enough, but part of human judgment is a person saying no to their impulses.

Some folks should practice not giving into their impulses.

Gifford's opponent, in a move he probably wouldn't easily admit to now, promoted a campaign event with the following words:

Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

Oh, you couldn't possibly misinterpret that.

"We have a constitutional remedy here and the Framers says if that don't work, revolution," he said. "If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary."

"Our nation was founded on violence," Broden said.

The question in the interview related to what he would do according to the results of the midterm elections. Ask yourself, what would be your reaction to somebody essentially saying, "If my party doesn't win the election, there'll be blood in the streets?"

In 2009, Richard Behney, running for Evan Bayh's seat said this:

"We can get new faces in. Whether it's my face or not, I pray to God that I see new faces. And if we don't see new faces, I'm cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I'm serious about that, and I bet you are, too. But I know none of us want to go that far yet, and we can do it with our vote," he said.

Gregg Harper, talked about the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus by adding this gem:

"We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition."

You can, in fact buy hunting licenses for liberals, the way you can buy them for ducks and deer.

These are the incidents Democrats have heard about for the last two years, the anger they've had come their way. So let's be blunt. The Republicans have well worn in rhetoric, the pathway that links guns, antagonism towards the left and words that oversteps the bounds of peaceful speech that lead many who first heard of the incident in Tuscon to conclude that a Tea Partier might be responsible.

By flirting with the notions of taking the political fight to a more lethal level in their rhetoric, Republicans created the negative expectations of their party that they so bitterly complain about now. It's not unfair to hold them responsible for what they said. It's not unfair for Democrats to hold this against them, to use this to convince voters that they're not the best choice. Are people who are so reckless with their words really the best choice?

If Republicans did not want to be the first suspects in these kind of terrible events, they should not have tread the path of political violence in their talk. They should have said that there was no room for that, even if it meant they couldn't energize their base with talk of taking up arms and having a revolution.

Because, really, their luck could have run out this time. It could have been a real Tea Partier, and not a lunatic who's a registered independent. Democrats don't have to worry about being so strongly associated with the crazies that come from our fold, because we watch what we say, and how we say it. We have far fewer cross words to apologize for, and like President Obama did with Reverend Wright, we much prefer not to stand behind and glorify the overheated language. We know we will be held accountable, and we submit to it.

The question is, will Republicans submit to community standards, or will they continue to place themselves beyond the pale in what they say?

It is the choice of those on the Right what they say, and whether or not they continue to say the things that lead people to believe that their politics are dangerous. If they want to make themselves sitting ducks for more shameful negative attention, if they want to suffer the political consequences of being default radicals of American politics, nobody can stop them.

The Republicans cannot expect to shake a reputation for violence while they let their fringe spout off rhetoric, mostly unchallenged, that calls for violence if they don't get what they want politically. They have to make the choice of which ideas, which kind of tone they set for their party. They can't have it both ways. Settle for the path of peaceful political discourse, or settle for being the first suspects when people hear about these kinds of incidents.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2011 9:51 AM
Comments
Comment #316779

SD Wrote: “But I would qualify that in two ways. First, obviously they don’t think this way themselves.”

I don’t know how you could know what a so-called Republican is thinking? Are you a mind reader? Are you omnicient?

SD Wrote: “That is why this man, Jared Loughner gets confused with a Tea Partier, if he indeed isn’t one. He carried out the threatening impulse that Tea Partiers are loath to admit exists in their rhetoric. He attempted to apply a second Amendment solution to Rep. Gifford. The raw, exposed nerve endings left by months worth of disturbing, hostile rhetoric and behavior from the Right, needed only one nerve to be struck in order for people to quickly jump to the conclusion they did.”

You’re really grasping. First of all, why even make the supposition that he’s a Tea Partier? Moreover, even if he was a Tea Party supporter, it doesn’t prove anything, because he is shown to be mentally disturbed. And even if he were not mentally disturbed their is no causation here save for your need to make one - all in the name of “not letting a good crisis [or tragedy] go to waste.” Finally, if the so-called ‘nerve ending’ rhetoric is so inciteful, why hasn’t there been more, or earlier violence?

SD Wrote: “The feeling already was, “If this keeps up, somebody’s going to get killed, or something awful’s going to happen.”

Rhetoric does not kill. People do. I’ll leave it at that.

SD Wrote: “It’s not a lie for me to say this. There have been a number of nuts who have, it seems, taken the lead of those folks on air, and sought out the enemies of civilization, of capitalism, of whatever else. Rather than simply be the armchair soldiers of a legal, if misguided voting booth revolution, they decided to take what was said at face value. People already died, or found themselves at risk.”

You use the weasel word “it seems” here. Well, It seems to me that you are relying on supposition and speculation again - speaking specifically to the ‘hate speech’ argument that you posit. I don’t want to be an alarmist, but the Liberalism or the Progressive cause cannot cure what ails irrational people or the vagaries and ills of society. Didn’t we all wish, try, dedicate, pledge and/or attempt to legislate our way out of endemic problems and tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech and Fort Hood? There’s another bigger problem. How do we both help those with mental disorders without depriving them of their freedom, and at the same time, keep ourselves safe from their haphazard ways?

SD Wrote: “If Republicans did not want to be the first suspects in these kind of terrible events, they should not have tread the path of political violence in their talk. They should have said that there was no room for that, even if it meant they couldn’t energize their base with talk of taking up arms and having a revolution.”

Again, whether you want to believe this or not, both sides engage in similar tactics. This ‘false equivalency’ BS is getting old. And come to think of it, I don’t really see a lot of this so-called ‘path of political violence in their talk’ spoken everyday. To be sure, Angle made a foolish remark during her campaign against Harry Reid (and Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann talked about it every single night up to the actual election; even after the election, they still talk about it). But one person caused all of this fervor? I mean, you or I could’ve beaten Harry Reid in this campaign. The only person in Nevada that couldn’t beat the single most vulnerable senator in the U.S. was Sharon Angle, but that’s irrelevant, of course!

SD Wrote: “Because, really, their luck could have run out this time. It could have been a real Tea Partier, and not a lunatic who’s a registered independent. Democrats don’t have to worry about being so strongly associated with the crazies that come from our fold, because we watch what we say, and how we say it. We have far fewer cross words to apologize for, and like President Obama did with Reverend Wright, we much prefer not to stand behind and glorify the overheated language. We know we will be held accountable, and we submit to it.”

Luck? Again, the Association Fallacy is a very, very weak argument. “Democrats don’t have to worry about being so strongly associated with the crazies that come from our fold”: Talk about the double-standard of all double-standards! Thus your logic follows as:

A. Democrats watch what they say and thus have fewer words to appologize for.

B. Republicans (especially the ‘crazy’ Tea Partiers) resort to more ‘hate speech’ than their political counterparts.

C. Whenever an unhinged and deranged person assasinates or kills someone, the Republicans are to blame because their speech rates higher on the official-hate-speech-o-meter that Stephen uses as his litmus test.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 11, 2011 3:36 PM
Comment #316788

“A. Democrats watch what they say and thus have fewer words to appologize for.

B. Republicans (especially the ‘crazy’ Tea Partiers) resort to more ‘hate speech’ than their political counterparts.

C. Whenever an unhinged and deranged person assasinates or kills someone, the Republicans are to blame because their speech rates higher on the official-hate-speech-o-meter that Stephen uses as his litmus test.”
To A&B I say: well, duh!!!!!(although I’m not sure it’s “hate speech” exactly) To C? You (and many others here) keep missing the point!! You almost seem to be doing it deliberately. All the tough talk about “targeting” people, about “solutions” with ordnance overtones ad nauseum, have taken on a life of their own, have taken flight. Have come home to roost.

Can you tell me why any reasonable person wouldn’t equate the type of violence we have just seen with the type of rhetoric (and actual actions) which preceded the violence?

You can read what S.D. has written and need to be so defensive? Why? Why can’t you agree that it’s a piss-poor policy to use bluster and threats when you don’t get your political way? Come on, man!!!!! Really!!

Posted by: steve miller at January 11, 2011 4:03 PM
Comment #316795

Kevin L. Lagola-

SD Wrote: “But I would qualify that in two ways. First, obviously they don’t think this way themselves.”
I don’t know how you could know what a so-called Republican is thinking? Are you a mind reader? Are you omnicient?

Give me a break, Kevin! I’m conceding that your party isn’t evil and intentionally trying to mess things up!

As for my Loughner argument?

Look, Arizona is a known conservative state, and a hotbed for Tea Party and other far-right activity.

Second, the Far right and Tea Party have gotten very hostile, sometimes violent in their rhetoric lately. Recent actions, like the stomping of that protestor at the Rand Paul rally, and that arrest of the reporter at the Miller rally worries many on the left that the Tea Partiers might think themselves a law to themselves.

Third, the target is a Democrat.

So, having been primed by the last two years worth of outrageous hostilities, and violent incidents, and hearing breaking news that a Democrat has been shot in deep red Arizona, what conclusion would you draw at that moment, and who would fall under scrutiny almost immediately?

You ask why there hasn’t been more violence. Well, the answer goes two ways: first, this is not the first time right-wing associated violence has shown up in the last two years, just one of the more violent episodes.

The other way is also pretty simple. Most people are decent, not violent.

Trouble is, it only takes a few people getting violent to cause a lot of suffering. 19 hijackers killed thousands. A handful of people killed hundreds, children among them, in the Murrah Federal building. Technology makes suffering both easier to inflict, and harder to ignore.

Rhetoric doesn’t kill people, but it does indicate a certain state of mind in a population, and when those people get angry enough, the folks with radical or insane beliefs feel emboldened to do their harm. It’s not a direct or simple relationship, but we can say for certain, it does a country of people little good to stew in anger, anxiety, and despair. Those who can snap, become more likely to.

People are always going to snap and cause harm. The question is, how easy is it for them to gain access to the means to take what might be a tragedy with one person, and make it a tragedy for many more?

I like to think strategically in these terms, make it harder for certain things to be done under the radar, keep certain items with no redeeming value (like the extended magazines the man used) off the market. If our aim is to exercise God-like power, we fail of course. If our aim is to make the would-be criminal, terrorist, or assassin jump through hoops that make bringing together their plan extraordinarily difficult, that’s another story. You can’t utterly prevent these tragedies, but you can reduce their likelihood, and their impact.

On the subject of Sharron Angle? First, the GOP in Nevada chose her, and so many of the other losers who made these dumb, unforgiveable comments. The tolerance of such comments is part and parcel of what put you in that lousy position. Second, her rival lost the race in no small part because, for one thing, she suggested people could barter chickens, among other things, for healthcare.

I’m arguing for you to raise your standards. Given problems like I’ve described, its puzzling that you’re fighting me on this.

On the subject of luck? not everything’s under our control, and some circumstances that aren’t under our control nonetheless affect us and our endeavors. I talk about luck in that case because it is a lucky break for your people that the man is not a Tea Partier (at least not as we know, so far.) Because he’s not, the questions about whether Tea Party rhetoric brought this about are more distant, less difficult to shake.

Still, I would say, take heed of the warning. When it is a Tea Partier, the Republicans aren’t going to get any rest, and as rational campaigners, many Democrats are going to bring it up, simply as a matter of good strategic sense.

It is not a fallacy to suggest that the closer a whacko is to your party, the more damage he does when he blows. It’s simple common sense. If your party had the confidence that the Tea Party could stand the scrutiny, then why where your people so quick to try and establish him as a leftist? Why was that Tea Party Express guy so concerned about it?

Your folks knew they had a problem, and they know why they have a problem. They know how strong the cognitive association they’ve made is, how often they’ve used language which talks about the Second Amendment Remedies, revolution, and all that other stuff.

Your people have to spin and muddle this issue up, or else you’re going to take the brunt of this explosion at point-blank range, thanks to the reckless rhetoric your people let themselves employ.

As for the hate-o-meter? Look, I don’t see much of Democrats saying they should shoot republicans, used them as target practice. There isn’t any “bring an elephant gun” or “Elephant hunting license” I know of.

Armed revolution doesn’t seem to be so big of an option on my side of things, nor do we constantly talk about keeping our guns to confront the jackbooted thugs of the government.

Yet you want me to buy that our two sides are equally bad.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s some pretty hostile, cynical rhetoric on our side. I’m not arguing we’re angels. But we tend to accept certain limits on how far the attacks go. We also don’t cultivate near the level of free floating paranoia that the GOP leadership has, with death panels, re-education camps, Communist Rockefellers and other crap like that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2011 5:51 PM
Comment #316797

I read SD’s comments. What he is saying is the same old crap he’s been saying all along. He is right and everybody else is wrong. Narcissum first class. That old crap is like those torpedoes from my dog. After three days they are hard and easier to pick up. After three days SD hard crap. Nothing changes. You very well could have been that guy standing next to Sheriff Dipstick in Pima County. Why don’t you write a real pontificating column on the victims familes. Now that would take some real effort on your part. Probably the shortest column you ever write, too.

You are so concerned about sounding smart and wise (which you aren’t) that not a single word was written about the families of the slain in Tucson. You did not even mention Congresswoman Giffords name. You sure had time to wring thru the wringer all means of any opposition on any subject concerning this incident though. A pox on your house. Your approach is exactly why you get hammered so often. It is all about SD and how he knows all and has all the answers. But in reality denial works temporarily for some and it seems to be harbored in Texas.

None of what I just wrote was done in hatred. It was done in disgust of my fellow Americans.

Posted by: tom humes at January 11, 2011 6:00 PM
Comment #316800

No comment other than, Amen to the AZ legislature.

Arizona shootings: Senate OKs ‘funeral protection zone’
Alia Beard Rau and Mary Jo Pitzl - Jan. 11, 2011 03:44 PM
The Arizona Republic


The state Legislature on Tuesday unanimously passed a bill to create a “funeral protection zone” to keep protesters from disrupting the funerals of those killed in the mass shooting near Tucson.

It was a bipartisan show of support for the victims of the Tucson shooting, and it passed both chambers of the Legislature on a unanimous vote.

The bill is on its way to to Gov. Jan Brewer, who is expected to sign it later today.

The Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas responded to the shooting by posting a video on the YouTube website, saying, “Thank God for the violent shooter.”

He vowed to have his band of followers picket at the funerals.

In the Senate debate, Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, said he would vote for the funeral bill, but he was conflicted because “even idiots have a right to free speech.”

House Speaker Kirk Adams said the bill doesn’t trample on anyone’s First Amendment rights.

“Anybody has a right to say what they want to say in this country” Adams, R-Mesa, said after the bill passed the House on a 58-0 vote. “But we have a right to regulate the time and place (of such speech).”

The bill is patterned after an Ohio law that establishes a 300-foot protection zone around a funeral location from one hour before the event until one hour after it. The Ohio law was recently upheld by the Sixth U.S. Court of Appeals, which made Arizona lawmakers confident their proposal is constitutional.

Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, made similar comments.

“This is a balance of rights,” he said. “Your rights end where mine begin.”

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, a bill sponsor, thanked the Senate for its bipartisan support, saying “tragedy is not partisan.”

“We have to do what’s right,” she said. “I feel like we’re doing something to help Tucson. Families need to grieve in peace.”

The bill passed the Legislature in record time: One day from start to finish. It was a highly unusual move, brought on by the urgency of the Tucson situation. Funeral services begin Thursday.

The bill has an emergency clause, which required a ¾ vote of the Legislature but allows the law to go into effect immediately once Brewer signs the bill.

In addition, the Republican and Democratic parties in Pima County are urging people to help form a human barricade along the funeral routes to protect the victims’ families from Phelps and his small band of vocal protesters.

Members of Phelps’ controversial Westboro Baptist Church picket funerals to draw attention to the church’s anti-homosexual views. Members last month picketed the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards.

Posted by: tom humes at January 11, 2011 6:06 PM
Comment #316802

This will not make some of you happy but that is the way life is.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

From: Gary L. Bauer

America Needs God

For those legitimately looking for an explanation of what “inspired” Jared Loughner, instead of seeking to score cheap political points, here are some ideas that you are unlikely to hear our secular elitists talking about.

We live in a culture that is increasingly hostile to God. We teach our children that their very existence is a cosmic accident that crawled out of primal sludge and “evolved.” We once taught them that they were made in the image of our Creator and that each life had dignity and worth based on that fact. Friends say Loughner did not have much use for God or religion. There appears to be an occult shrine in his back yard. Had anyone ever shared with him the words of God, who said, “I set before you life and death, blessings and curses, therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.”

Did any school that Loughner attended even teach him that America was built on the idea that liberty comes from God or that only a virtuous people could remain free? Did he know that he would stand before that God someday and be judged? Did any classroom he was in have a copy of the Ten Commandments?

Did the popular culture and its creed — “if it feels good do it” — lead him into his apparent heavy drug use? Can we raise generation after generation of young Americans and teach them that little, innocent unborn babies can be destroyed at a whim and not expect some of those youth to conclude that life is cheap and disposable?

For at least 30 years, Americans who have raised these questions have been attacked relentlessly by the secular left. They have been called intolerant bigots, religious extremists, racists and worse. But now, as our media elites talk about civility and stopping the hate, wouldn’t it be a good idea to invite God back into our public life, our families, our institutions and our discourse? Can America survive if we fail to do so?


Jared Loughner The Republican?

Yesterday a fake voter registration document circulated online purporting to show that Jared Loughner is a registered Republican. It was a well-done fake, except that the left-wing dope who produced it spelled Tucson incorrectly!

Loughner registered to vote in 2006 as an independent. He voted in 2008. We don’t know for whom, but I doubt it was for the McCain/Palin ticket. Interestingly, in 2010 when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords ran for reelection and was challenged by a Republican candidate strongly supported by Tea Party activists, Loughner did not even bother to vote!


The Party Of Paranoia

Here is more evidence of the media’s bias: CBS was so eager to gauge the impact of its “spin machine” that it has already conducted a poll asking who or what is responsible for the Tucson shooting. The good news is that the results were a big disappointment to Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann and their ilk.

According to the poll, 57% of Americans do not believe that “overheated” or conservative political rhetoric was responsible for the attack on Rep. Giffords. Unfortunately, 42% of self-identified Democrats did buy into the smear, which is a sad indication of how far paranoid extremism now reaches into that party.


The Shot NOT Heard Around The World

Since the weekend, the media and political elites have been in a frenzy of recrimination. From Sarah Palin’s target list to Rush Limbaugh’s rhetoric, it seems that every prominent conservative is responsible for this heinous act. But one recent and rather extreme example of over-the-top rhetoric has mysteriously escaped all the finger pointing.

When Time compiled a list of the “Best Viral Campaign Ads of 2010,” the one entitled “Dead Aim” topped the list. In the ad, a Senate candidate picks up his rifle and literally shoots Barack Obama’s cap and trade bill. Was this candidate advocating a “Second Amendment solution” to Washington’s power grabs? Gabrielle Giffords voted for cap and trade. Why aren’t left-wing commentators blaming the candidate who ran this ad for her shooting?

If the ad had been run by a Republican, you can bet they would be demanding his resignation. But they are instead ignoring the ad because the candidate who ran it was Joe Manchin — a Democrat — now West Virginia’s junior senator.

Efforts to ignore Manchin’s ad while relentlessly harping on Palin and Limbaugh remind me of one liberal reporter’s defense of the media’s coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape case — “The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.” The fact is most reporters are left-wing, and for many advancing the liberal narrative is more important than the facts. True journalism is a dying craft.

From Rathergate to Journolist, the liberal media’s groupthink mentality is a growing danger to the republic given the radical left’s totalitarian impulse to silence its opposition. Far from being the guardians of free speech and a free press, many so-called journalists are willing accomplices, all too eager to label conservative views as “hate speech.” Not wanting a crisis to go to waste, liberal politicians are now renewing their calls for the Fairness Doctrine to silence talk radio, and for new laws to insulate themselves from criticism

Posted by: tom humes at January 11, 2011 6:18 PM
Comment #316803

There goes S.D. again using his same old double standard of things. We know what the left means when they use hate retoric but hang the right when they do the same. You better wake up Stephen people are getting tired of the retoric from both sides not just the right.

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 6:21 PM
Comment #316804

Stephen

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.

Just stop the silly speculation.

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.

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 6:23 PM
Comment #316807

Mr. Daugherty writes; “It is not a fallacy to suggest that the closer a whacko is to your party, the more damage he does when he blows. It’s simple common sense.”

The TEA party is not recognized as part of the Republican Party. That many of their goals may align better with R’s and C’s rather than D’s and L’s does not imply or create an association. The TEA party challenged not only D’s in the last election but R’s as well.

Unlike the two mainline parties who can and do exercise considerable control over the candidates they support, the TEA party has no such command and control structure.

It remains the duty and responsibility of the voters to support those whom they wish to elect. Candidates who in their heated rhetoric appear to espouse violence will not last long. And, should it get out of hand there are laws concerning incitement to violence.

Some are using this incident to further their political ambitions or agenda rather than lament the violence that sometimes occasions hot political debate.

Our political history is replete with violence of every sort. We as a nation have yet to find a way to prevent these actions and keep our Constitutional freedoms.

Some find no difficulty placing blame on others not associated with the event. They have only their beliefs to back up their theory. We all know by whom and how this crime was committed. Anything more is pure speculation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 11, 2011 6:42 PM
Comment #316808

tom humes-
No hatred, but disgust? You’ll have to teach me what the distinction is between hating somebody and being disgusted with them is.

I don’t speak of the families because I assume we’re all sorry for what happened to them. I assume the best of people in general, and I hope people assume that I have that compassion to begin with. We all know they deserve the deepest of condolences, and the strongest of efforts on our part to prevent such tragedies from repeating.

My strong feelings aren’t a product of any kind of chosen egotism. That’s simply the way my brain operates. I’m not that social, not that subtle in the feelings that surge and boil around inside, and not altogether shy about speaking my mind, as Emerson said, in hard words.

But I do recognize my fallibility. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have written my last entry in a way that basically admitted that I couldn’t speak to the associations of the culprit.

I don’t like to compromise without cause, concede without reason. I don’t like to be put in a position where I’m acting gullibly, just following around the kind of myths I’ve learned to be wary about from the right.

There seems to me to be an inordinate amount of rationalization on the right, and the problem is, when you rationalize enough, then practically nobody gets held accountable for what they do and say. That doesn’t mean that people stop making mistakes or doing wrong, it just means that nobody calls them on it, and they keep on screwing it up.

Until Republicans and those on the right recognize that their failure to constrain themselves can be a problem, they, and the country with them, will suffer. Same thing with the Democrats, to a lesser extent.

People need checks and balances, in terms of their beliefs. They need to realize that what they think and believe is fallible, and build in routines and habits that allow them to discern, test, where things are different from what they thought and expected. And, realizing these things, they need to act on what they know, all the while figuring out how to adapt their actions to get the desired outcomes.

It can be a maddening approach to politics, but more maddening still to me is a politics awash in the chaos of endless spin and dishonesty.

There’s got to be something to put the brakes on bad ideas and bad habits in ourselves and our organizations, because we are fallible creatures, and failure complicates more easily than it resolves.

As for what carries me away? It’s the ideas. Ideas compel me. Not perfect ideas, necessarily. I can and have been wrong. But compelling ideas. And I’ve followed enough compelling ideas to understand that sometimes compelling doesn’t mean right. The world has its own logic, and we’re not always in on it. I want to be more jacked into that than not, more integrated in my perspective to the concrete realities of the world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2011 6:47 PM
Comment #316809

Stephen said, “Until republicans and those on the right recognize that
their failure to constrain themselves can be a problem, they, and the country with them, will suffer. Same thing with democrats, to a lesser extent” You blew it Stephen when you put to “a lesser extent.” Share the guilt equally Stephen.

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 6:59 PM
Comment #316810

tom humes-
Should I have to remind you about reprinting material in its whole or greater part? Quote, link. You can’t force people to read it anyways, there are scroll wheels, arrow buttons, and good old fashion skimming.

et al.,
I find it interesting how many people argue with my politics, rather than agreeing with the simple point that the pattern of one’s rhetoric colors how people predict your actions. If you threaten a second amendment remedy, why be shocked when folks associate your people with political violence?

This, for the most part, is a cognitive argument, one founded on the notion that people often reason things out by experience, rather than automatically doing it by disciplined examination of the evidence.

Like my professor said, everybody works on partial information. Tea Partiers have given their opponents and many regular people too many reasons to suspect them first. The question is, can they survive without appealing to anger?

It’s a good question, especially if you look at the angry way in which many of them are trying to push back on the association. They’re missing the point, really. Folks remember what you do, and if most of what they remember is alarming, you’re not going to fare well until your people have made it a habit to operate with greater calm and restraint. It wasn’t John Brown with fiery spirit who freed the slaves, it was Abraham Lincoln, the calm, reasonable, unflappable leader.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2011 7:00 PM
Comment #316811

Stephen

Certainly agree about John Brown and Lincoln. I reject the idea that left wing hate speech provoked the shooting, but I agree that I wish they would tone it down.

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 7:03 PM
Comment #316814

Stephen, this is good article.

You wrote:

There seems to me to be an inordinate amount of rationalization on the right, and the problem is, when you rationalize enough, then practically nobody gets held accountable for what they do and say. That doesn’t mean that people stop making mistakes or doing wrong, it just means that nobody calls them on it, and they keep on screwing it up.

Until Republicans and those on the right recognize that their failure to constrain themselves can be a problem, they, and the country with them, will suffer.

Unfortunately from the reaction we’re seeing so far, it doesn’t look like folks on the right will be restraining themselves in any way at any time soon. Which means there will likely be more shooting sprees in our nations future.

Same thing with the Democrats, to a lesser extent.

Very true. I read this story just today:
Dem who called for Fla. governor to be shot now pleads for ‘civility’

That is why this man, Jared Loughner gets confused with a Tea Partier, if he indeed isn’t one. He carried out the threatening impulse that Tea Partiers are loath to admit exists in their rhetoric. He attempted to apply a second Amendment solution to Rep. Gifford. The raw, exposed nerve endings left by months worth of disturbing, hostile rhetoric and behavior from the Right, needed only one nerve to be struck in order for people to quickly jump to the conclusion they did.

Yes, I’m not completely convinced that this guy wasn’t in some way influenced by the extremist rhetoric that he heard all around him. I made a comment under the other article thread on this topic, but since it applies here too, I’m going to repeat it:

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!”

Loughner may have been registered as an independent, and may have been a reader of extremist literature such as Marx on the far left, and Hitler on the far right, but just before he picked up his weapon and went on his killing spree, he was using what many of us can easily recognize as tea party-style rhetoric.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2011 7:15 PM
Comment #316815

Mr. Daugherty writes; “There’s got to be something to put the brakes on bad ideas and bad habits in ourselves and our organizations, because we are fallible creatures, and failure complicates more easily than it resolves.”

Tom Humes in his post above gave a good account of why we are facing such violence, hatred, despair, and more in our country and in the world. Mr. Daugherty is an avowed Christian and as such, must know that God has provided the path to peace and unity among men. When man ignores God and his laws he is doomed to fail.

In my seventy years I have seen a general falling away from deep religious conviction in this country. What would have been unimaginable in my youth is not only condoned today but legislated.

For me Mr. Daugherty it is very simple. The further we move away from God, and His laws, the more trouble we have.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 11, 2011 7:16 PM
Comment #316816

Well put R.F.

Posted by: KAP at January 11, 2011 7:18 PM
Comment #316818

“Give me a break, Kevin! I’m conceding that your party isn’t evil and intentionally trying to mess things up!”

Mr. Daugherty, you are one sick SOB. You said the same thing you said in your last post. Why don’t you pack your bags and go with Remer, your BS will fit right in with his BS.

Spin this one you simpleton:

“Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., pens an op-ed in the New York Times today about the proper political response to this weekend’s tragedy. I wholeheartedly support the former Congressman (Kanjorski lost his seat in November) when he argues that, following this weekend’s shooting, Congressman need to remain open and accessible to the public. However, Kanjorski is rather hypocritical when he climbs up on his soapbox:

We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.

Incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect? Congressman heal thyself! Yesterday, I noted that, according to the Scranton Times, Kanjorski said this about Florida’s new Republican Governor Rick Scott on October 23:

“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/dem-congressman-who-called-gop-gov-be-put-against-wall-and-shot-n#ixzz1AmBLLXcG

Posted by: Z at January 11, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #316822

Adrienne

Very funny. You write it with such passion that one might think that you really believe it.

Posted by: C&J at January 11, 2011 7:32 PM
Comment #316824

I don’t and won’t condone anyone of any party calling for the elimination of the opposition. Just the opposite, in fact. I will condemn any liberal, middle of the roader, or conservative who does this.

I’m sure someone on the left blamed Palin for the event in Tucson, but not me. In fact, I don’t recall anyone BLAMING Palin for this at all, though they may have insinuated such.

What I do wish to discuss is the fostering of this idea that we are at whit’s end, the end of the rope, the last straw, and that now we must change the nation by means other than political. This idea IS utilized as a means of firing up the base these days.

Now we see that perhaps there should be some accountability for such rhetoric.

That’s all I’m saying.

If I ranted on endlessly on national tv and radio saying that John Boehner was the reason the US is in dire straits, that John Boehner is plotting to let corporations steal your homes and savings, that John Boehner is setting up the American worker to become a slave wage laborer for the ultra-wealthy. Then I enlisted others to parrot the charge day in and day out. Next, I reason that only by ‘eliminating’ John Boehner could we be saved. I trotted out one crazy link and reference and political, social, and economic tie after another to prove that John Boehner was a greedy, heartless, elitist monied rat who should be viewed as our mortal enemy.

If I did that, then one day someone assasinated John Boehner, would I have any responsibility? I didn’t pull the trigger. I never told anyone to harm him physically.

Of course, this is all over the top and I’m not suggesting that anyone, ahem, Glen Beck, is doing this, but if this occurred, would I be held accountable?

So the conservatives here would say no. Is that what I understand?

Posted by: LibRick at January 11, 2011 8:08 PM
Comment #316825

Z

But, Z he’s a democrat and democrats we are being “taught” by Prof. SD just don’t do those kind of things. How can this be? Could he be a Tea Partier pretending to be a democrat? Naw, no Tea Partier would lower himself to do that. Could this be a deranged democrat? Does he own a gun? Naw, if he does own a gun it probably is not registered. Oops, thats against the law. Naw, democrats don’t bread the law, do they? Could it be just rhetoric from a democrat, you know, we really don’t mean what we say. Hey, I think I’m onto sumthin’ here. Kinda like that Grayson (ret-FL)who eats mush and spits corn. That guy wanted some people to die of cancer. Maybe I’m gettin’ ahead of myself here. In Prof. SD’s class democrats don’t deal with death. Now I have to challenge the Prof. They legislate death for young and old. So maybe he will cover that in a future class if we live long enough before those retired Congressmen go do what they could not get someone else to do for them. I’m in AZ. I hope they chicken out before they come out here. Not for my sake but we have people who are said to be hateful and carry guns where you can’t see them and it would be such a shame for someone who just retired to permanently retire.

There has been mention of several killings in the recent years, but none of them are connected to constitutional principles. And just for the record, the Tea Partiers are for replacing members in Congress only one way and that is the ballot box not the bullet box. I will bet Prof SD cannot form any kind of story about the Fr. Hood shooter being a Tea Partier. Take it Prof, run with it, see what kind of story line you can make. Was Columbine a right wing extremist plot? Another challenge Prof SD. These killings mentioned so far are ironically with guns. Now I am starting to put the pix together. But some of the missing parts are those rapists that kill not using a gun. Now how does this fall into play? Oh that doesn’t count. Only the ones where a gun was used. But more people were killed with the Auto/alcohol cocktail every year for decades than were killed with guns. So Prof SD, how does this puzzle you have presented really play out in the honest world of reality?

Posted by: tom humes at January 11, 2011 8:08 PM
Comment #316826

SD

You gotta be kiddin’. You can write long gibberish and expect people to fall all over you for your brilliance. But if I cite a source and rather than have people go to it, I bring it to them, then I am in error.

Like I said, Ya gotta be kiddin, aren’t ya’?

Posted by: tom humes at January 11, 2011 8:13 PM
Comment #316828

Attributed to Kanjorski:

“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks.”

I don’t know about anybody else, but not only wouldn’t I vote for this guy…..I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with him. His statement is indefensible. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but I could NEVER support such a f$#@!&^ imbecile.

So, right-leaners………what, exactly is the difficulty in disavowing similar rhetoric, even if it does come from your side????????

Posted by: steve miller at January 11, 2011 8:31 PM
Comment #316831

steve miller, can you name a conservative who said something like Kanjorsky?

What are the qualifications to be able post on this site? Evidently, the qualification can’t be very strick, because Daugherty is an idiot.

Posted by: Z at January 11, 2011 8:51 PM
Comment #316833

You mean something like “Search Results
Glenn Beck Threatens to Kill Michael Moore (VIDEO)
Jan 10, 2011 … GLENN BECK: “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 …
www.blippitt.com/glenn-beck-threatens-to-kill-michael-moore-video - Cached”
Too easy. But more to the point; why is it so hard for you to say it’s wrong????????????????????

Posted by: steve miller at January 11, 2011 9:15 PM
Comment #316850
What are the qualifications to be able post on this site? Evidently, the qualification can’t be very strick, because Daugherty is an idiot.

The qualification is not calling anyone an idiot. Please Critique the message and not the messenger here. (And read the rules)


Regarding the shooting in Tuscon, both sides need to tone it down a notch. Although Jared Loughner clearly had right-of-center beliefs regarding monetary policy and other issues, neither side should be talking about killing their political opponents. There is a time for a second amendment solution, but our current system of government is megaparsecs away such a situation.


I’ve grown really sick of reading most of the comments on this article. Commentators here should put down their partisan blinders and stop defending the hurtful things uttered by prominent people on their side. Although the last few years have played host to mostly right wing vile rhetoric, there was more than enough hateful things said during the Bush administration by the Left which were nearly as bad.

Instead of getting distracted by these sort of things why don’t we focus on the real issues at hand, like recovering from the recent recession, dealing with our unsustainable debt, resolving the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan and other issues.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 11, 2011 11:17 PM
Comment #316858

Reality, judging from what I have been reading, there are no rules on this site. The name of the game is lies, slander, and personal attacks. I just write what I see. Daugherty should be writing for the dailykos. I have seen nothing from him that exibits the ability to actually hold a discussion. I believe I asked before if he was on democratic payroll for the purpose of speading his lies and rhetoric.

Posted by: Z at January 12, 2011 12:18 AM
Comment #316860

By the way Reality, I don’t guess you progressives can help yourselves:

“Regarding the shooting in Tuscon, both sides need to tone it down a notch. Although Jared Loughner clearly had right-of-center beliefs regarding monetary policy and other issues”

First you say the same thing all liberals are now saying (since the rhetoric has got out of control), tone it down. Then as Daugherty has done, you continue to say Loughner is right of center. You guys just can’t drop it can you?

“I’ve grown really sick of reading most of the comments on this article. Commentators here should put down their partisan blinders and stop defending the hurtful things uttered by prominent people on their side. Although the last few years have played host to mostly right wing vile rhetoric, there was more than enough hateful things said during the Bush administration by the Left which were nearly as bad.”

Perhaps you could tell us Reality, who threw the first stone? Who blammed conservatives for these shootings? Now that the polls are coming out and showing the American people are against this kind of talk and 57% of Americans don’t believe harsh political tone had anything to do with the Tucson shootings, we find democrat politicians calling to dial it down. Hypocracy..

Posted by: z at January 12, 2011 12:34 AM
Comment #316864

Royal Flush:

When man ignores God and his laws he is doomed to fail.

Is this really necessary? Couldn’t we say instead that when mankind ignores morality he is doomed to fail?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 1:04 AM
Comment #316878

When all else fails, call on some magical higher power…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2011 6:36 AM
Comment #316882

Marysdude, you see, this is part of the rhetorical problem; Conservative Christians have heart felt beliefs and the left makes fun of them simply because they do not understand.

Sad, isn’t it?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 12, 2011 9:43 AM
Comment #316883

I am an admitted social liberal. The attempt to connect this deranged individual to the right is silly and laughable, at least it would be if not for the death and pain he caused.

I do not see any connection to the right nor do i see any connection to the left here. “researchers bias” is the only thing that connects this sick person with a political agenda. until we know more about what he was thinking, perhaps when he is tried in court, speculation is just more hate speech, weather it be from the left or the right.

there is not a causal connection here, there has been no evidence connecting this man to the right nor to the tea party. SD this seems a stretch to further ones agenda and rings as disingenuous.

My heart goes out to all those injured & killed by this disturbed man. It is shameful to try to place this at the feet of the right. I acknowledge the fact that the right has been very vocal about”second amendment solutions” to their political problems. the left is not innocent in that regard either. people that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks.

any pundit,candidate, or congressperson that advocates violence as a remedy should pay close attention here though, they have been lucky so far that only the wackos are acting on their paranoia. if this escalates anymore SD’s causal connection is just a heartbeat away. that is not the case here though and no evidence has been presented to show the connection.

Posted by: John in napa at January 12, 2011 9:46 AM
Comment #316884

Con,

It is just as sad that such dependence on the magical creature is used as a part of a dialog about political matters, the voice of reason in political matters, and the way abuses occur in both. Your God had NOTHING to do with any of it.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2011 9:50 AM
Comment #316885

PS:

I’m pretty sure this comes up in so many threads here as a diversion from serious talk about serious subjects. Some people get bored with the subject at hand so they bring one of these ‘God’ statements up in order to divert attention and start a whole new thread. If they really want to do that they can either become an editor here, or blog on a religious site.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2011 9:54 AM
Comment #316886

Hey progress!! Hallelujah!! Adrienne is getting religion!!

Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 10:25 AM
Comment #316888

At the risk of Prof SD’s ire here is Charles Krauthammer’s column today. I think he said it correctly.

Massacre, followed by libel

By Charles Krauthammer

The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.

Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.

A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. “His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world,” said the teacher of Loughner’s philosophy class at Pima Community College. “He was very disconnected from reality,” said classmate Lydian Ali. “You know how it is when you talk to someone who’s mentally ill and they’re just not there?” said neighbor Jason Johnson. “It was like he was in his own world.”

His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with “unnerving, long stupors of silence” during which he would “stare fixedly at his buddies,” reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through “grammar.” He was obsessed with “conscious dreaming,” a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.

This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class “I sit by the door with my purse handy” so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.

Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner’s fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: “I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.”

Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he was hardly inciting violence.

Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power - military conquest. That’s why the language persists. That’s why we say without any self-consciousness such things as “battleground states” or “targeting” opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest - “campaign” - is an appropriation from warfare.

When profiles of Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive - and creative - political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill - while intoning, “I’ll take dead aim at [it]” - he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.

Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel’s little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd - unless you’re the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.

The origins of Loughner’s delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman’s?


Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 10:53 AM
Comment #316894

Very depressing:

Right-Wing Moves to Attack Sheriff Dupnik

Since the political climate on the right in Arizona is so totally toxic, I now fear for this man’s life. And all because he had the nerve to call for civility and made a plea for an end to so much extremist rhetoric.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 11:49 AM
Comment #316895

tom humes:

Hey progress!! Hallelujah!! Adrienne is getting religion!!

Uh, no. One doesn’t need religion to be a moral person. In fact, that was the point of my comment.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 11:54 AM
Comment #316898

Adrienne

“Since the political climate on the right in Arizona is so totally toxic, I now fear for this man’s life. And all because he had the nerve to call for civility and made a plea for an end to so much extremist rhetoric.”

All the while he employed extremist rhetoric.

And who do you think is making you fearful?

When you say the political climate on the right in AZ is so totally toxic, you totally do not know what you are talking about. Maybe those you get your writing points have poisoned your mind enough for you to believe that, but it is absolutely false. I live here and am closer to the states situation than you are by a far margin. I deal with AZ state government on a regular basis. Not at every level of course, but enough of the brass to know the system and people in the system. This is from many political angles and persuasions.

Read more of what Sheriff Dipstick said. He was flame throwing big time. He should have been conducting an investigation rather than face time with PR people. He needs to retire and go to Hawaii or someplace where he can enjoy his style for awhile. The sheriff knows better than all of us here that the young man had a mental problem and that the problem got him into difficulty before this event. To accuse anybody of any persuasion that they were abetting the behavior of this young man is not responsible.

Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 1:05 PM
Comment #316900

tom humes-
If you don’t start citing and excerpting, I will have to start junking your comments. This site is liable under copyright laws for your excessive copying.

Moving on:

But, Z he’s a democrat and democrats we are being “taught” by Prof. SD just don’t do those kind of things.

No, unfortunately they have that same capacity. The culture’s just different. It’s not as big on guns or militias, nor is it as big on anti-authoritarianism as it once was. We’ve pretty much reduced much of our radical left to debating societies, in an effort not to get targeted by the right over their hijinks.

There’s a reason I hedged on the title of my last entry. I knew perfectly well that the world has its supply of nuts pretty evenly spread.

The Fort Hood shooting was a real tragedy, and I’m sorry it happened. The man, however distressed he might be by events, by his treatment by others, always had another alternative. I won’t claim he was a Tea Partier, nor that Columbine was an extremist right wing plot.

But really. If we closed up the gun show loopholes, would it have been easier to keep guns out of those kids hands, or at least make their behavior harder to go unnoticed? If that guy at Fort Hood had gotten the counselling or the respect he needed, could he have found a less tragic outlet for his frustrations? If Jared Loughner’s mental illness had kept him from getting a gun, or assault weapons laws kept him from getting the extended magazine, could it have helped make his attack one of a number of failed plots we heard about in the last two years?

Oh, about that honest word of reality?

Ballots & Bullets New Rep. Allen West (R-FL) almost hired a Florida talk-radio host, Joyce Kaufman, as his chief of staff. But Kaufman withdrew after media coverage of some of her more fiery statements, such as:

“I am convinced that the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave a Second Amendment,” she told a tea party crowd last summer. “And if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”

Royal Flush-
I’m a convert who came to Christianity based on what I read of C.S. Lewis, and he had an approach he called Mere Christianity, which depended less on the theology, and more on the basic concepts.

What appeals to me about Christianity is that embedded in the texts is the understanding that ones behavior feeds back. Do good to others, as you would have good done to you. Love your enemies. Love your neighbors, as you love yourself.

I do believe that people would benefit from being closer to God. But that’s something they have to do of their own free will, as their own response to God’s grace.

If you want more people to come to God, the basic principles can be the start of that appeal, and their demonstration in practical terms can be what people see of Christianity.

What I ask of Republicans is more care in what they are, and what they appear to be saying. Unfortunately, much of the response I have gotten seems to appeal to the notion of an eye for an eye, rather than “bless those who curse you, do good to those who do evil to you” approach.

For my part, I know both sides of this dividing line from personal experience. I know that I did not support political violence back in 1995, when I was an agnostic and a humanist, and I know I do not support it now. I think it’s perfectly possible for both sides to renounce such violence, and I hope they do so.

z-
I do post for DailyKos. It’s got it’s share of people who troll like you. Unfortunately, this site doesn’t have hide rating, which conceals comments deemed to be trollery. So instead, authors like myself have the ability to delete comments, and the management can ban them outright.

Food for thought.

I wish I was on some kind of payroll for this, but if I was, I wouldn’t do it in secret. I’m too proud of what I am to hide it.

As for what I continue to do, quote me where I’ve said Loughner was right of center on this post, or my previous one. No, seriously, show me. I’ve simply settled on the guy being nuts

My main point is that if you don’t want to be associated with people employing “second amendment remedies”, then don’t employ that kind of veiled threat, in words or actions. Don’t chunk that rhetoric at the public day in and day out, and then expect nobody to think of you first when somebody actually carries the rhetoric out.

What you say and do, I’m asserting, helps set what people think of you. You can’t argue yourself out of responsibility for what you say.

Of course, being a Democrat, it seems like some will disagree with this rather simple and intuitive point simply because it’s me making the argument. But that’s their problem.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 1:12 PM
Comment #316901

tom humes-
Has it occured to you that when you call somebody Sheriff Dipstick, you’re not exactly demonstrating a fair and balanced tone?

You expect to say insulting, demeaning, demonizing things, and not be called on it?

Really.

If you don’t want to be seen a certain way, simply arguing that everybody is as bad as you won’t help, because you’re effectively conceding, with such arguments, that you are as bad as they say. You’re only muddying the waters, not clearing your own name.

Represent yourself as you would want to be seen.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 1:16 PM
Comment #316904

Conservative posters:

The crazy who pulled the trigger in Arizona was likely not political, and he likely did not follow Palin or Beck, or O’Reiley, but he breathed the air, and felt the hot breath of government scorn put out by the three of them and more, i.e., Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al. The right has the ‘voice’, and it can be heard in sundry ways.

Please reconsider your defenses of the indefensib­le.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2011 1:26 PM
Comment #316906

Dude you forgot to include Krugman, Matthews, Shultz, Olberman and Maddow.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 1:38 PM
Comment #316908

Tom Humes, it appears that Sheriff Dipstick has a complete file on this murderer, gathered from previous years, and yet is unwilling to let the material out. Now the left will say, he can’t release the material of an impending investigation, but I say, he has already gibven the defense enough material to get off on an insanity plea.

It is also interesting that NYT and MSM who interviewed Jared Loughner’s friend, were told by the friend that Loughner was not interested in politics nor did he listen to talk radio, but these facts were mysteriously omitted from the interview, after the fact.

Marysdud said:

“Conservative posters:

The crazy who pulled the trigger in Arizona was likely not political, and he likely did not follow Palin or Beck, or O’Reiley, but he breathed the air, and felt the hot breath of government scorn put out by the three of them and more, i.e., Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al. The right has the ‘voice’, and it can be heard in sundry ways.

Please reconsider your defenses of the indefensib­le.”

So dud, is this guy breathing the air of Sheriff Dipstick, who has left the world of protecting and serving the public, to enter the world of partisan politics? Do you feel the same way about Dipstick?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 12, 2011 1:55 PM
Comment #316909

KAP, he never forgot. His hypocritical statements betray the fact, he is ignoring what the left says. He is only insensed when he can blame the right.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 12, 2011 1:58 PM
Comment #316910
Then as Daugherty has done, you continue to say Loughner is right of center.

The only political sentiments I can decipher from Loughner’s delusional rants is his disapproval of our current fiat monetary system. He clearly wishes to return to money backed by precious metals, which is a sentiment nearly exclusive to the right. None of his other rants are coherent enough to allow anyone to interpret any political ideology. 40% of the country are self-proclaimed conservatives, so it isn’t surprising that this particular nut was a conservative. The next nut could very well be a liberal, it’s just a matter of luck that this guy happened to be conservative. Maybe he wasn’t much of a social conservative, but he seems to have had a libertarianish conservative track, similar to devotees of Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s fan club certainly predates the Tea Party so I don’t think the Tea Party was relevant to Lougner in any tangible way. However, I’ve never heard any particularly violent rhetoric out of Ron Paul’s fan club so I doubt they had much of an impact either.

Nevertheless, both sides are quite guilty of overheated political rhetoric and it needs to stop. Krugman and others who jumped the gun clearly need to tone it down as well; I certainly don’t endorse their approach.

All we can do now is pray that Giffords and the other victims make swift and complete recoveries while we move on to more important business.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 12, 2011 1:58 PM
Comment #316912

tom humes:

When you say the political climate on the right in AZ is so totally toxic, you totally do not know what you are talking about. Maybe those you get your writing points have poisoned your mind enough for you to believe that, but it is absolutely false.

I don’t believe you. Arizona does appear to be a very toxic environment politically — at least for everyone but those in tea party organizations.

Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 2:09 PM
Comment #316913

Royal Flush:

When man ignores God and his laws he is doomed to fail.

Is this really necessary? Couldn’t we say instead that when mankind ignores morality he is doomed to fail?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011

Yes, absoutely necessary. I can find and understand God’s guidelines for man’s morality. I don’t know from where you get yours. And, if you know from where your morality originates, how do you know it is correct and that it works?

I know these are tough questions Adrienne and I don’t really expect an answer. Atheists are at such a disadvantage in a world designed by God for those who follow Him. It must be a tremendous “oops” moment when they die and find that God is very real.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 2:20 PM
Comment #316915

conservativethinker-
His name is Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. I called George Bush George Bush virtually every post, and the same for Dick Cheney. It’s very easy to make fun of people’s names, but easy isn’t right or good, now is it?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 2:24 PM
Comment #316916

Royal Flush,

Your comments above sound much like Christian Fascism.
And to tie this to the topic of the above article, I think that the rhetorical style of Absolutists and Eliminationists has been influencing American political discourse in a very negative and toxic way.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 2:34 PM
Comment #316917

I offer one question and one comment:

Question: From a macro-socio-political point-of-view, who has the answer to what happened in Tucson, AZ? From our president, down to our Congressional leaders, governors, mental health experts, professors and all other folk, what is the answer?

I don’t have one. In my comments, I only want to point out some of the media’s politicization of what I deem an unconnected event.

Comment: I really hope President Obama finds the right words and the right tone for his upcoming speech later today in Tucson, AZ. All Americans are saddened and introspective in the aftermath of this tragic episode. I think he is far too intelligent to wade into, even a little bit, the toxic debate that has people on one side accusing the people on the other side of causing violence, or vice-a-versa.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 12, 2011 2:35 PM
Comment #316918

His name may be Clarence Dupnik but his comments clearly came from a Dipstick.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 2:36 PM
Comment #316919

Kevin Only two have the answer 1} The shooter and 2} GOD.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 2:38 PM
Comment #316921

steve miller wrote:

“Can you tell me why any reasonable person wouldn’t equate the type of violence we have just seen with the type of rhetoric (and actual actions) which preceded the violence?”

“You can read what S.D. has written and need to be so defensive? Why? Why can’t you agree that it’s a piss-poor policy to use bluster and threats when you don’t get your political way? Come on, man!!!!! Really!!”

To your first point, the answer is far too obvious for me to respond. Haven’t you watched or read anything in the media?

To your second point, I’m not defensive at all. I merely try to point out any inherent flaws or weaknesses in someone’s argument(s) via the use of logic, reason, facts, analogies, corallaries, anecdotal evidence and sprinkle it with strongly-defendable opinion. And where have I threatened anyone??? That’s not my style. I don’t threaten, I debate without the use of metaphorical hate, violence or personal attacks.

By the reaction of your response, it seems as though I have succeeded in my endeavor to point out the weaknesses in some of Stephen’s essay.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 12, 2011 2:50 PM
Comment #316922

“And, if you know from where your morality originates, how do you know it is correct and that it works?”

RF, the same could be said for the source of your morality. How do you know that you are following the true “God” or that the particular human interpretation of your “God” is correct?

Posted by: Rich at January 12, 2011 2:52 PM
Comment #316923

Royal Flush-
I don’t think you’re impressing her, or converting her for that matter.

We are only better taught, not better teachable, and like any students, we can forget what we have been taught, and be no better in our behavior than those who never learned from our master.

We do not encourage people when we address them with such arrogance as to presupposed they are incapable of good judgment. God gave them their wits, just like he gave us ours. If we can do the right thing, so can they.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 2:56 PM
Comment #316924

When Congress Was Armed And Dangerous

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/opinion/12freeman.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 2:58 PM
Comment #316925

Rich

If RF and myself included are wrong so what. If we are right you have a major problem.

Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 3:03 PM
Comment #316926

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Royal Flush-
I don’t think you’re impressing her, or converting her for that matter.”

I am not attempting to impress or convert anyone…are you?

Here’s a simple question. Has science ever produced life from non-life? My research tells me no. And yet, we have life on planet Earth in abundance. Could the atheist explain how nature (whatever that is) accomplished something that modern science can not?

No doubt we will get many theories from atheists all of which are less provable than the existance of God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 3:16 PM
Comment #316927

>Marysdud said:

“Conservative posters:

The crazy who pulled the trigger in Arizona was likely not political, and he likely did not follow Palin or Beck, or O’Reiley, but he breathed the air, and felt the hot breath of government scorn put out by the three of them and more, i.e., Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al. The right has the ‘voice’, and it can be heard in sundry ways.

Please reconsider your defenses of the indefensib­le.”

So dud, is this guy breathing the air of Sheriff Dipstick, who has left the world of protecting and serving the public, to enter the world of partisan politics? Do you feel the same way about Dipstick?
Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 12, 2011 01:55 PM


Conservativedinky,

Okay, have it your way…thank you Dinky. My hat’s off to you, you sure have a way with words. And your arguments are clear, concise and to the point.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #316929

KAP,

I left out the left mouthpieces because they don’t have the ‘voice’, and for the most part are using what little voice they do have in response to some form of hateful blather coming from the right. But, if it will make you feel secure at night, I’ll toss them in too.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2011 3:31 PM
Comment #316930

RF, the same could be said for the source of your morality. How do you know that you are following the true “God” or that the particular human interpretation of your “God” is correct?

Posted by: Rich at January 12, 2011

Rich, I can’t speak for others. I know that in my life when I follow the guidelines given by the Judeo/Christian God that my life is most satisfying. If something else works for you then go with that.

I know for certain that man’s morality doesn’t and isn’t work(ing).

Here’s an example of morality without God.

NASHVILLE — The Alliance Defense Fund filed a complaint Tuesday with the Department of Health and Human Services against Vanderbilt University for requiring nursing residents to participate in abortion procedures. Vanderbilt receives more than $300 million in federal tax dollars each year, and federal law prohibits grant recipients from forcing students or health care workers to participate in abortions contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

ADF attorneys filed the complaint on behalf of a fourth-year nursing student at another university who wishes to apply to Vanderbilt’s nurse residency program but is unable to do so because the admission forms require her to promise to participate in abortions.

“Christians and other pro-life members of the medical community shouldn’t be forced to participate in abortions to pursue their profession,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “People enter the medical profession to protect and heal the helpless. Federal law protects them from being required to kill the helpless. The law clearly states that grant recipients cannot accept taxpayer dollars and require health care workers to participate in abortions, which is precisely what Vanderbilt is doing.”

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4511

For my Christian friends I highly recommend donating to ADF as they are a potent group of Christian lawyers who work to undo much of the damage being done and attempted by the ACLU.

They have successfully defended schools, churches, communities and individuals against the anti-Christian activities of the ACLU.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 3:31 PM
Comment #316931

Veterans Sue Obama Administration Over 76 Year Old War Memorial: VFW Wants Obama to Restore Mojave Desert Cross

Another example of man’s morality from ADF.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/veterans-sue-obama-administration-over-76-year-old-war-memorial-vfw-wants-obama-to-restore-mojave-desert-cross-113290169.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 3:46 PM
Comment #316932

Illinois Legislators Approve 66% Tax Increase

Done in the dead of night and just before the new legislature takes control, the Illinois Democrats demonstrate man’s morality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13illinois.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema4

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 3:50 PM
Comment #316933

This is totally off topic but…

RF:

Here’s a simple question. Has science ever produced life from non-life? My research tells me no. And yet, we have life on planet Earth in abundance. Could the atheist explain how nature (whatever that is) accomplished something that modern science can not?

Yes. You’re talking about Abiogenesis. Scientists have produced life from non-life. The famous Miller–Urey experiment that took place back in 1952 first proved how life could come from inorganic matter — proving Darwin’s theory that life on earth grew out of a ‘primordial soup.’

Here are some links where you can read about it:

Organic Compound Synthesis On The Primitive Earth

‘Lost’ Miller-Urey Experiment Created More Of Life’s Building Blocks

No doubt we will get many theories from atheists all of which are less provable than the existance of God.

You’ll only get one theory from this agnostic:
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
It has held up scientifically over, and over, and over again.

But there is absolutely no proof for the existence of God, and therefore, no way to prove what is called “creationist theory.”

I know for certain that man’s morality doesn’t and isn’t work(ing).

You should speak for yourself, sir.
My morality is working just fine.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 4:42 PM
Comment #316935

SD

Don’t stick your chocolate covered shoes too far into your mouth. What in the world are you talking about the quotes I use? Straws must be cheap in Houston.

Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 5:01 PM
Comment #316936

SD

And don’t pull that lawyer crap on me. What a joke for a younster like you to pull. Oops, I keep forgetting I’m talking to a liberal and they only are for free speech if you are a liberal. Darn, gootta start takin my memory pills again.

Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 5:04 PM
Comment #316937

Dude they don’t have the voice, because they have a falling audience. But they do say damageing things much like some on Fox do.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 5:13 PM
Comment #316938

tom humes:

Thanks for the above Krauthammer op-ed post. Charles Krauthammer is probable my favorite op-ed writer, followed by David Brooks of the NYT, George Will, Maureen Dowd and a few other Independent and Liberal writers (content is King for me: writers who show perspective, logic and reasoning, historical references that are relevant, humor and of course darn good substance) are my favorites.

Does anyone else have some suggestions as to who’s at the top of your list as far as op-ed writers? I’d like to read some new perspectives. I generally read most syndicated writers, and lots of others, but want to know if there are some underrated op-ed writers that I’ve missed.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 12, 2011 5:16 PM
Comment #316939

Darwin has been debunked over and over and over and over (had to go one up on ya).

The Miller-Urey experiment is so full of holes that swiss chees manufactures threaten to sue for trying to duplicate their chees process.

You cannot produce life from non-life; I don’t care how many times you can bring up experiments. The evolutionists are the ones who claim the sun sets and rises. But I thought the earth rotated around the sun and that was a pretty much done deal.

Thats all on this subject today. We were on the Tucson affair. I have returned.

Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 5:19 PM
Comment #316943

Royal Flush-
Why are we discussion biology, proof of God to this extent? What does that have to do with the subject at hand?

Proofs that rely on theology only impress those who share the theology. As Americans, we are given the freedom to decide our own course, to set our own standards as to what the right religion is, and no matter how you insist upon it, it isn’t up to you to dictate to her how she should worship, or whether she should worship at all. That’s her decision.

You seem to be just arguing that Liberals and humanists are all morally deficient, and that your view should triumph on those grounds. Never mind that a woman having an abortion is still a patient in need of care. Are you truly pro-life if you let her suffer for want of a nurse’s care? Never mind that the alternative to raising that tax could be putting more people in dire straits concerning healthcare and their economic situation.

Never mind that government should not be representing one religion as surpreme, according to the law of the land. You might think that unfair, but the compact that the framers signed wasn’t between you and everybody else. Yours is just one of many religions that enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution, and the government isn’t allowed to pay favorites, however beneficial you or your friends might believe that to be. That’s not how we operate the government.

Part of the whole point of our form of government, is that not everybody agrees on what is right or moral. Not every body agrees on what the conscientious policy is. You’re trying to force agreement on people by means of government, because of your religious beliefs, and find yourself frustrated by the high courts current jurisprudence, and the constitutions own words.

You don’t get to win your argument just by being in the right faction. You’ll have to convince others on more basic grounds than that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 5:39 PM
Comment #316944

“Oops, I keep forgetting I’m talking to a liberal and they only are for free speech if you are a liberal. Darn, gootta start takin my memory pills again.”


Tom, while your taking your memory pill why not take your truth and accuracy pill as it seems your statement reflects a shortage of both.


Posted by: j2t2 at January 12, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment #316945

Adrienne writes; “Yes. You’re talking about Abiogenesis. Scientists have produced life from non-life.”

Yup…I’ve taken a close look at the material. You should take a look at material that doesn’t support your statement.

Also written by me was; “I know for certain that man’s morality doesn’t and isn’t work(ing).” and you followed with this response.

You should speak for yourself, sir.
My morality is working just fine

I did speak for myself…guess you didn’t notice. Glad to hear your conception of morality is working for you. Now, can you really tell me that, “man’s morality is working?”

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 5:46 PM
Comment #316946

j2t2
What seems not always is.

Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 5:47 PM
Comment #316947

tom humes-
You’re reprinting what looks like whole articles. That’s a copyright violation. Look at what Royal Flush does, as much as I disagree with his opinions. He cites and quotes, which is covered in fair use.

I’m not a lawyer, I’m a Radio/TV/Film degree graduate who was taught about copyright law as part of his course. I was taught about laws concerning privacy, including what defined a public space, and fair representation. I was taught about laws concerning defamation, or libel and slander in other words. I was taught about copyright and other intellectual property laws. I was taught about the legal limits of First Amendment rights, including time, place, and manner, not to mention fighting words and incitement.

So when I talk about these things, I talk from knowledge of what some of the legal concepts are. I know what lines the Republicans are dancing dangerously close to, and what lines you’re getting too close to.

There is a such thing as fair use, which includes taking part of copyrighted works to illustrate ones point in a debate. I don’t just say this for my benefit, and I’m definitely not saying this to impugn your comment. I am saying this because you and this site are liable for such violations. Good intentions are not a excuse for breaking the law, and not a defense against a lawsuit or a cease and desist order.

I expect you to act the part of an intelligent conservative commentator who respects the intellectual property law. You can make your point just as well by a link and a quote, and its much safer for all concerned, legally speaking.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 5:52 PM
Comment #316948

Off subject but I believe many will benefit from this article. It really helps one understand bonds.

Why Interest Rates Keep Rising, Despite QE2

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/why-interest-rates-keep-rising-despite-qe2/19797132/

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 6:01 PM
Comment #316949

Adrienne, your left wing liberal link says 4 republicans resigned because of the TP, and yet only talks about 1, am I missing something. You expect to use this crap as evidence? You expect us to believe something coming out of a liberal socialist site, especially when they take things out of context.

Stephen Daughtery said,

“conservativethinker-
His name is Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. I called George Bush George Bush virtually every post, and the same for Dick Cheney. It’s very easy to make fun of people’s names, but easy isn’t right or good, now is it?”

Well Stephen, aren’t you the politically correct person; by the way what did you call the people belonging to the Tea Party? Did you defend our rights to not be called tea baggers? Were you enraged about the name calling of those on the right, or is this further proof of hypocrisy?

Warped Reality said, “Nevertheless, both sides are quite guilty of overheated political rhetoric and it needs to stop. Krugman and others who jumped the gun clearly need to tone it down as well; I certainly don’t endorse their approach.”

I am becoming very disappointed in you Warped. You make this statement after you said this, “The only political sentiments I can decipher from Loughner’s delusional rants is his disapproval of our current fiat monetary system. He clearly wishes to return to money backed by precious metals, which is a sentiment nearly exclusive to the right. None of his other rants are coherent enough to allow anyone to interpret any political ideology. 40% of the country are self-proclaimed conservatives, so it isn’t surprising that this particular nut was a conservative.”

So again, you announce your disappointment in accusations on both sides and in the same breath you try to identify this criminal with the conservatives? You have been around the liberal professors too long; they are filling your head with mush again. Is it just me or are you talking out of both side of your mouth? Is he a conservative? Do all conservatives want to go back on the gold standard, or do conservatives want to stop de-valuing the dollar by printing more useless paper?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 12, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment #316951

Do all conservatives want to go back on the gold standard, or do conservatives want to stop de-valuing the dollar by printing more useless paper?

Posted by: Conservativethinker

Good points. Put my name in the column to stop devaluing the dollar. I didn’t look it up but it has been decades since we even backed our dollars with silver, much less gold.

I held on to some silver certificates for many years and finally sold them for a very nice profit. Now, of course, even our coinage is debased. Of course you would never find a liberal confessing their part in the currency debasement.

Read the article from DailyFinance linked above for some really scary reading.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 6:21 PM
Comment #316953

“Good points. Put my name in the column to stop devaluing the dollar. I didn’t look it up but it has been decades since we even backed our dollars with silver, much less gold.”

Well, for better or worse, you can blame a Republican for severing the last ties to the gold standard. In 1971, Richard Nixon broke the international gold standard agreement (Bretton-Woods) by ending the direct convertibility of the US dollar to gold.

Posted by: Rich at January 12, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #316955

Right Rich…may he rest in hell.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 6:41 PM
Comment #316957

ConservativeThinker-
Political Correctness? No, I just think it’s a useless sort of thing to say. It’s not going to impress anybody who’s not a liberal for me to call Bush “Chimpy McFlightsuit”. And my aim is more or less to be accessible to folks who aren’t liberals, to expand the audience of people who buy my arguments beyond the easy converts of the choir.

What have I called Tea partiers? Well, that and Tea Partisans. I don’t call them teatards, teanazis, or tea baggers typically. And lets not forget the truth you’re not admitting to here, which is that the Tea Partiers actually were the first ones to call themselves Teabaggers, having lacked the search engine skills to discover that their favored name described a particularly obscene act. There are so many mistakes that the Right makes nowadays that could have been prevented by having somebody run the term through the Google.

I’m annoyed more than furious about the tendency. I find politics like that tiresome, which is one reason I came here in the first place, having debated politics for years on other forums. It was nice to debate about the facts.

But seriously here, do you read what many conservatives actually write, even here? If you were to say, “we need to tone down the conversations here, stop calling each other names.”, then right, I’m all for it. Let’s cooperate to that end.

But let’s cooperate. Limit yourself, disarm yourself of these weapons. Be the example of the change you wish to make. I resist name-calling, though I sometimes feel like flinging a few insults, so I can reach a broader audience of people who don’t necessarily share my beliefs, my point of view, and therefore my range of acceptable targets. It’s not simply altruistic. There are practical benefits to not alienating people.

Royal Flush-
The Main reason we went off the Gold Standard is that when you depend upon gold to run your economy, your money goes with your gold. That means a lot of economic instability. It’s no coincidence that the years we were on the Gold Standard had us vulnerable to severe monetary and price shocks, with depressions and recessions fairly common.

If that’s what you want to go back to, you’re entitled to your opinion, but not my agreement. Full employment seems a better goal to me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 6:55 PM
Comment #316959

Mr. Daugherty writes; “It’s no coincidence that the years we were on the Gold Standard had us vulnerable to severe monetary and price shocks, with depressions and recessions fairly common.”

OH, I see. Not like the past decade or so? Have you looked at the price of gold today? Do you understand the rush to own gold and other commodities rather than hold paper?

Which would you rather have in your own pocket today Mr. Daugherty…a bill backed by some precious metal or one backed by nothing but faith in government?

Read the article from Daily Finance I posted and perhaps your outlook will change.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 7:05 PM
Comment #316960

I don’t think what I wrote was anywhere near the vitriol of what has appeared elsewhere in the blogosphere. I don’t care how much you try to spin it, but this man’s views on monetary policy are clearly conservative/libertarian. Only conservatives and libertarians have advocated for reestablishing the connection between paper money and precious metals in recent decades. The most vocal advocate for the gold standard recently has been Ron Paul. Monetary Policy, however, is only one issue and we have no clues on what Loughner believes on other topics. Certainly there are conservatives who believe in fiat currency, but this is not standard conservative fare, but rather an instance in which some on the right share the same position as the left.

I don’t see it as a problem that Loughner has a right-wing view. There are plenty of leftists extremists out there as well; tomorrow one of them might attempt an assassination, but that would not change any of the fundamentals of our discussions. Why don’t we just accept that Loughner was from the right and move on. I accept that previous assassins were leftist, but it doesn’t bother me. Why does it bother you that Loughner came from the right? Who cares?

I think it’s absurd to think that Left and Right wing ideas contributed to this equally. Both sides contributed, but in unequal amounts. Maybe it was 40/60 or 45/55, but it certainly wasn’t 50/50.

Personally, I’m finding it absolutely disgusting that I have to write what I wrote; it certainly is leaving a bitter taste in my mouth. I was smart enough to avoid commenting for a couple of days on the shootings, unfortunately I wasn’t smart enough to avoid commenting any longer. Can one of the WB editors please write an article on some other topic? No one commented on my off-topic comment about climate change so I don’t even have that to work with.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 12, 2011 7:09 PM
Comment #316963

Point is warped he was a registered independent, he had no party affiliation and didn’t vote in the last election.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 7:20 PM
Comment #316964

Does anyone else have some suggestions as to who’s at the top of your list as far as op-ed writers? I’d like to read some new perspectives. I generally read most syndicated writers, and lots of others, but want to know if there are some underrated op-ed writers that I’ve missed.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 12, 2011

Here’s a sample of one of my favorites Kevin.

“Here’s the House of Representatives new rule: “A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.” Unless a congressional bill or resolution meets this requirement, it cannot be introduced.

If the House of Representatives had the courage to follow through on this rule, their ability to spend and confer legislative favors would be virtually eliminated. Also, if the rule were to be applied to existing law, they’d wind up repealing at least two-thirds to three-quarters of congressional spending.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2011/01/12/what_our_constitution_permits/page/full/

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 7:31 PM
Comment #316965

WR writes; “Why don’t we just accept that Loughner was from the right and move on.”

Why don’t we just not care and move on?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2011 7:36 PM
Comment #316966

One of the most valuable uses of paper is toilet paper. You won’t find me wiping my but with precious metals. Why is it that for thousands of years the wealthy had large investments and ownership in precious metals. It was their stability. When did paper have a stable track record. It never did.

And for the record Nixon had to get it past congress, so don’t blame socialist Nixon for this, share the blame with those who voted in Congress to follow suit.

Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 7:40 PM
Comment #316968

Tom Humes,

It was a unilateral action by Nixon in 1971 to disavow the Bretton Woods agreement and refuse to convert US dollars for gold. Congress eventually passed legislation in 1978 making the action official.

Posted by: Rich at January 12, 2011 8:17 PM
Comment #316969

Rich
They were all wrong in doing so. The names don’t make any difference. The numbers were there and it got done. Just one more anti- and un-American action by the people we elect to do the right thing and get pooped on instead.

Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 8:22 PM
Comment #316971
Point is warped he was a registered independent, he had no party affiliation and didn’t vote in the last election.

He did vote in 2008 so he wasn’t entirely apolitical. 40% of the nation identifies as conservative but only a little more than 30% register republican. Substantial numbers of self-proclaimed conservatives register independent or some other party.

“Here’s the House of Representatives new rule: “A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.” Unless a congressional bill or resolution meets this requirement, it cannot be introduced.
I agree with this 100%. This sort of rule would bring us closer to the liberalism on which our country was founded.
WR writes; “Why don’t we just accept that Loughner was from the right and move on.”

Why don’t we just not care and move on?

Fair enough. After all, Loughner may give a jailhouse interview which make us all into fools with our wild speculations and extrapolations.

Kevin,
If you want a good left wing voice to read, I recommend Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias. I also recommend Andrew Sullivan, but it is difficult to classify his ideology as liberal or conservative. I agree that George Will, Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks are good conservative commentators. I watch the latter two on PBS’s Inside Washington and the NewsHour quite frequently.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 12, 2011 9:01 PM
Comment #316972

Conservativethinker:

Adrienne, your left wing liberal link says 4 republicans resigned because of the TP, and yet only talks about 1, am I missing something. You expect to use this crap as evidence? You expect us to believe something coming out of a liberal socialist site, especially when they take things out of context.

Yes you missed something. Go back and read it. I can assure you that it made mention of the others who are quitting. And, yeah it may be crappy, but it’s also evidence that even the average Republican in Arizona has to be scared sh*tless of the wackjobs who must make up the local tea party membership there.
And for petes sake, if you didn’t like the “socialist” website then you could have easily clicked on The Arizona Republic link to the story that was highlighted in bright red right ON THAT PAGE. Duh!

The Arizona Republic link ends with this sentence:

“I wasn’t going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday,” Miller said. “I love the Republican Party but I don’t want to take a bullet for anyone.”


Says it all, really.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 9:01 PM
Comment #316975

Stephen, you say, “But let’s cooperate. Limit yourself, disarm yourself of these weapons. Be the example of the change you wish to make. I resist name-calling, though I sometimes feel like flinging a few insults, so I can reach a broader audience of people who don’t necessarily share my beliefs, my point of view, and therefore my range of acceptable targets. It’s not simply altruistic. There are practical benefits to not alienating people.”, but do you mean it? Are you willing to set the example? Are you willing to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will not continue to abuse the authority you have to delete posts that meet the ROP? Are you willing to admit even that you have done just that? Or are you continuing to try to give the illusion that you are on the high ground all the while you deliberetely stiffle debate and free speech just because you have the authority to do so. I am interested in that answer, intrested to let everyone see if your character and not just your rhetoric on the issue.

Posted by: submariner at January 12, 2011 9:16 PM
Comment #316976

Royal Flush-
The past decade, eh? Look, the system works so long as you’re not letting Wall Street create false wealth. Our system didn’t fail because of inflation. It didn’t fail because of deficits. It failed because people on Wall Street, in the banks, in the mortgage lending companies and servicers broke basic obligations to their clients, to their depositors, to those with mortgages, and those that they suckered into taking up mortgages they couldn’t afford. Yes, some responsibility lies with those who sought those mortgages, but they simply could have been told no. It was the choice of the bankers and the lenders to push loans that they knew would not hold up. They went far beyond any policy to increase loans to the poor and disadvantage, and actively sought those they knew could not support the debt. That many of the state attorney generals were pursuing, and still are pursuing investigations into how these people conducted their business in loans and in servicing them.

The Right wants to blame government. Some on the right want to blame the floated dollar. But the lesson that is backed by evidence is that you can’t simply let markets operate opaquely in the dark, and that mortgage lenders must not be allowed to prey on those they indebt to them, and that they responsibly act as gatekeepers, for the sake of both their debtors, and their investors, who provide the money for the mortgages, and who bear the losses if they are not given out wisely.

If you want to blame government, blame it for not watching, for refusing to watch over a market that came to represent a huge part of our economy. If you want to blame it, blame it for giving Wall Street too much of what it wants, and not enough of the kind of accountability that makes a market fair, humanly understandable and navigable, and more robust against the kinds of shocks and problems that inevitably come.

You can horde all the gold you want to, and use whatever paper you need for hygienic purposes, but in the end, no market can survive a situation where the value of things cannot be determined reliably, because all too many who are meant to maintain relationships of trust undermine them for their own profit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2011 9:20 PM
Comment #316977

For once although I don’t agree with his politics I can call BHO MR. PRESIDENT, I hope all the liberal blogers here have listened to his speech at the memorial ceremony he made great sence out of a tragedy by not playing politics and NOT POINTING fingers as so many of the liberals here have done. All of us need to follow that example today.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 9:26 PM
Comment #316979

Warped Reality:

Loughner has a right-wing view.

Yes, it appears he does. I had a sense that this would turn out to be the case — I mean, most political assassinations usually turn out to be politically motivated in some way.

Why does it bother you that Loughner came from the right? Who cares?

The right cares and they’re pushing back as hard as they can because once again they are going to be forced to acknowledge the glaring fact that some nut listened to a bunch of crazy rightwing rhetoric and then went out and murdered a bunch of people.

The right wanted so desperately for him to be just some completely apolitical nut, that they started running with that claim really early and regardless of any facts. But now it’s turning out that Loughner was yet another rightwing militia-type nutcase along the lines of McVeigh. His messages are being decoded as coming from a group called Sovereign Citizens, and in particular, one of their theorists — a guy by the name of David Wynn Miller. Even Wynn Miller himself is claiming this to be more than likely.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 9:33 PM
Comment #316980

Adrienne Do you know for a fact that he listened to right wing retoric or is this just more left wing trash you are spewing?

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 9:38 PM
Comment #316983

Well KAP, I’ll give you a few quotes from another article:

Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, who has taken charge of the investigation here, said at a news conference that possible links to extremist groups would be a continued focus.
Some people who study right-wing militia groups and those who align themselves with the so-called Patriot movement said Mr. Loughner’s comments on subjects like the American currency and the Constitution, which he posted online in various video clips, were strikingly similar in language and tone to the voices of the Internet’s more paranoid, extremist corners.
In the text on one of the videos, for example, Mr. Loughner states, “No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver.” He also argues that “the current government officials are in power for their currency” and he uses his videos to display text about becoming a treasurer of “a new money system.”

The position, for instance, that currency not backed by a gold or silver standard is worthless is a hallmark of the far right and the militia movement, said Mark Potok, who directs research on hate groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“That idea is linked closely to the belief among militia supporters that the Federal Reserve is a completely private entity engaged in ripping off the American people,” Mr. Potok said.

But Mr. Loughner also posits in his Web postings the idea that the government is seeking to control people through rules and structure of grammar and language.

This is similar to the position of David Wynn Miller, 62, a former tool-and-die welder from Milwaukee who describes himself as a “Plenipotentiary-judge” seeking to correct, through a mathematical formula, what he sees as the erroneous and manipulative use of grammar and language worldwide. The Southern Poverty Law Center considers Mr. Miller a conspiracy theorist, some of whose positions have been adopted by militias in general.

“The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar,” Mr. Loughner said in a video. He also defiantly asserted, “You control your English grammar structure.”

Mr. Miller, in an interview, said the argument sounded familiar. “He’s probably been on my Web site, which has been up for about 11 years,” Mr. Miller said. “The government does control the schools, and the schools determine the grammar and language we use. And then it is all reinforced by newspapers, magazines, TV, radio and everything we do in society.”

Law enforcement officials said they suspected that Mr. Loughner might also have been influenced by things like American Renaissance, a conservative magazine that describes itself as “America’s premiere publication of racial-realist thought.”

Those are from this New York Times article, however I know you so many of you think of that as “left wing trash” and that being the case, you’re likely to automatically reject it out of hand. But perhaps when you begin hearing these things (that is, if you ever do) in newspapers or publications that you happen to trust, perhaps you’ll accept the facts that are just now coming to light.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2011 10:20 PM
Comment #316984

Kap:
Read the link…..then ask the question.

Adrienne,
I know people who (judging by their use of jargon/definitions) subscribe to this philosophy. I found it very disconcerting; a mortgage? Death gauge. Etc. etc.

If you want to read something much scarier, check out the link for the “Oath keepers”.
Meet the fast-growing “patriot” group that’s recruiting soldiers to resist the Obama administration
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers

It requires some reading, but is well worth it.

Posted by: steve miller at January 12, 2011 10:21 PM
Comment #316985

KAP + Adrienne

Why don’t we put the wild speculation on hold and wait a month or two for this to pan out? Loughner is alive and well and he’s not likely to stay silent forever. A proper revelation of evidence regarding his state of mind is likely to be demonstrated at his trial if he attempts an insanity defense.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 12, 2011 10:26 PM
Comment #316986

Adrienne

If you lift the garbage can lid you will smell and see garbage. Your references are that.

Posted by: tom humes at January 12, 2011 10:36 PM
Comment #316987

Personnelly Warped IMO he is just a NUT case. I never said he was either right or left. To me he is just a lunatic who got ahold of a gun and started shooting people, that dosen’t qualify him to be right wing or left wing, just nuts.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 10:38 PM
Comment #316988

I hope Adrienne has not violated SD’s copyright rules in comment #316983.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 12, 2011 10:46 PM
Comment #316989

Steve Miller Do you Know for a fact that the Az. shooter is a right wing nut case? As warped said lets put the speculation to rest until the facts are presented. As I said in another post “ASSUMPTION IS THE MOTHER OF ALL F—-UPS” taken from a Steven Segal movie “Underseige Dark Territory”

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 10:49 PM
Comment #316990

>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’…

Roughly 364 entries ago (both these last threads), I placed the above entry. Stephen had said he was not pointing at anyone, and I agreed it was too soon to judge, but had read the above and used it in my critique.

KAP, Con and others have lambasted me and others on the left for taking only one side and in being judgmental. I think they are being judgmental for saying that.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2011 10:54 PM
Comment #316992

Kap,
I don’t know it for sure……it looks as if he MAY be. Whether or not he is of a particular political persuasion is not the point. The point is whether or not political speech charged with threats of violence can influence someone to act violently.

Posted by: steve miller at January 12, 2011 11:08 PM
Comment #316993

Jeez, Con it’s only the 12th of January and here you go breaking your new years promise to us all. So much for keeping your word. I have to say though you lasted 2 days longer than I thought you would.


Seems Stephen is relevant after all and your brain fart was a bad idea huh?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 12, 2011 11:13 PM
Comment #316994

Dude, that’s the point Taking only one side before the facts are presented. You on the left are making speculations that may prove to be false. Those speculations if proven to be false will only hurt you. I suggest that we all take WR’s advice and wait for the facts.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 11:14 PM
Comment #316995

Couldn’t make to 5 and back to the beginning. I give up.

Posted by: Rob at January 12, 2011 11:19 PM
Comment #316996

Steve Miller, Political speech has been going on since day one of this country and you, nor anyone else can tell me it has all been mild or has had no violent metaphors. There is violent speech in RAP music and Heavy metal music, can we blame that to? Did the shooter listen to either? TV has violence, books have violence, cartoons have violence, everyday we are bombarded with violence in the news. But some choose to blame political retoric for political points. How sad.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 11:26 PM
Comment #316998

“The worst e-mails I received about the civility project were from conservatives with just unbelievable language about communists, and some words I wouldn’t use in this phone call,” DeMoss told the Times. “This political divide has become so sharp that everything is black and white, and too many conservatives can see no redeeming value in any liberal or Democrat. That would probably be true about some liberals going the other direction, but I didn’t hear from them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/mark-demoss-civility-project_n_808219.html

This from an evangelical Christian conservative. Yet Adrienne, Steve and Stephen don’t know of what they speak? You far right conservatives really need to get a grip on things. Your only fooling yourself.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 12, 2011 11:42 PM
Comment #317000

J2T2, but he didn’t hear from liberals, so your making one sided judgements. Could the reason be that he didn’t hear from liberals is the fact that he was an conservative evangelical Christian.

Posted by: KAP at January 12, 2011 11:57 PM
Comment #317001
I hope Adrienne has not violated SD’s copyright rules in comment #316983.
Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 12, 2011 10:46 PM

Not to worry, but you clearly can’t tell that she knows how to do it the right way.

Posted by: jane doe at January 13, 2011 12:32 AM
Comment #317002

Whatever KAP. Let me get this straight KAP your theory is that the evangelical Christian did not receive hate mail from the left because he was an evangelical Christian? Really! But those on the right sent him hate mail because he was an evangelical Christian conservative trying to tone down the rhetoric.

Ya know that is probably better than the nonsense I expect to hear from the rest of the far right on WB. It is a socialist site, it is a “fill in the conspiracy of the day” whatever. He is not a real evangelical Christian. He is a Marxist, HE is a Muslim, He was not born in this country, He yada yada yada.

One sided judgments!Pray tell KAP what is the one sided judgment that I am making? I posted a bit from the article that is from an evangelical Christian yet I am making a one sided judgment. Does anyone still wonder why I refer to the people of Germany of the ‘20’s and 30’s and how they bought into the Nazi line that ended up enslaving them? Look at how conservatives cannot drum up any critical thinking skills despite their own people telling them the hatred is a problem of and on the right side of the aisle. Have you ever seen such denial in your life?

How can we have any respect for you guys on the right when you act like this? You disgrace yourselves with this kind of rationalization. Shame on you KAP.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2011 1:57 AM
Comment #317005

You don’t have to take the word of a Christian Conservative Preacher. Just think of the dastardly, violent and distorted emails you have received, from those who forward these things, over the last few years. I’d bet more than ninety percent of it has been derogatory toward liberals and/or positive toward conservatives. How many of the hate filled messages did you laugh at, or agree with?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 13, 2011 6:07 AM
Comment #317006

The tea party tactic is intimidation. The threats and vandalism has been focused on those who voted for health care.

Much like with anti-abortion intimidation, sooner or later someone is going to go way over the line. But in the case of health care, the anger is intentionally manufactured by instigators. There is no reason people with health care should be so passionatlely upset - it hasn’t affected them.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 13, 2011 8:01 AM
Comment #317007

“The tea party tactic is intimidation.”

There is a reason that Newt Gingrich referred to the Tea Party as the militant wing of the Republican Party. Its time for responsible Republican leadership to reign in the Tea Party extremists.

Posted by: Rich at January 13, 2011 8:48 AM
Comment #317012

The repeated charges and accusations against the Tea Party is leveled from ignorance. The Tea Party movement was to get voters to actively back candidates for Congress that would reduced size and outlay of the federal government. Is that extreme? Now if that is extreme then you who oppose it are extreme in the opposite direction. That is how the shoe fits. Personally, I don’t think it is extreme. Creditability on the left is in the tank on this one. You cry, but are ignorant of what you are crying about. You accuse, but cannot come up with anything but a newpaper column which in most cases is biased or bigotted. Opinions are aplenty and that is ok. When facts get in the way of understanding then the problem begings. The old attitude is that you think you are correct and if someone else does not think that way they are wrong. That is what one would expect from youthful exuberance, not adult people who should by now have their head on straight. When a liberal bends the truth or outright lies, they say it is a conceptual error on the other persons part. When the opposition says something the liberal disagrees with, the liberal calls it a lie. When a liberal breaks the rules it is allowing his thoughts and ideas to flow thru to get the proper perspective, but when the opposition gives the whole story it becomes breaking not only rules, but the law as well. Well when you let your minds grow up, you will realize that truth is stanger than fiction. That came from somewhere, but I don’t know where, so I am in violation of quoting, but not citing. Tough.

Posted by: tom humes at January 13, 2011 11:31 AM
Comment #317013

Rob-
The first subject I chose, after the third of the principle articles, was about 9/11 responders. My call was to end further politicization of the issue, and let the bill pass. I felt this was more important an issue than our bet.

Same thing with the changes in reconciliation and budget rules.

As much as I want to demonstrate that I can speak positively on political issues, My career here has always been about policy. My first post, if you go back, was about budgeting.

If you want to hold it against me that I couldn’t ignore current events forever, fine. But I felt the issues were too important not to be engaged, not to talk about them.

I stand on some pretty firm principles I want responsible government, I want elegantly constructed government. I want budgetary processes that make sense, and when somebody glorifies a first responder or soldier, I want them to do right by them when their sacrifices end up costing them too much. And when somebody tries to blow a Congressperson’s brains out, I want people to take that opportunity to look at this, and understand that this is precisely what happens when what they talk about, the madness and violence they suggest, actually comes to pass. I want them to understand that they are not victims of the media for being stained by the infamy of the events, but victims of their own recklessness.

I want them to understand that because for me, the promise of nonviolent political discussion is a cornerstone of our political process, that you don’t have to lead an armed revolt to get some accountability, to be able to speak your mind. I’m sorry I couldn’t express these principles in a form that pleases you, or discuss things in an entirely positive manner, but both the positive and the negative aspects of my political speech are defined by the shape of the things I believe, not merely the need to compete against and defeat the right.

Let me say that I’m not sorry I took up our bet. I probably needed the opportunity to calm down, to express what I believed in a purer form.

Politics though, never remains a matter of pure thought.

KAP-
I agreed with our President 100% yesterday, in particular that point he made about the fact that we need to express our children’s idealism about American and about what our government does in the way our system actually runs.

On the subject of Loughner’s associations, they remain unknown to a certain extent, and I wouldn’t exonerate the right just yet on this matter. The whole reason I held back on really discussing the attacker or his politics when I wrote that first article on the subject, was that I am quite familiar with the way events like this tend to develop. I can remember from my early teens that our first suspect in the Murrah Building bombing was the Muslims. Naturally, the facts didn’t bear that out.

One intriguing question, which I think should give you pause, is where Loughner got the thousand dollars he need for the gun and the ammunition. Though I would tell my fellow Democrats and liberals here that they shouldn’t link him prematurely, or short of evidence, to the right wing groups, I would advise you not to pre-emptively clear those movements, either. The issue of the money creates the possibility that he might have acted with the help of others. You need to be prepared for that to go in a direction you might not expect.

conservativethinker-
She copied maybe ten paragraphs out of almost fifty. So, I wouldn’t think so. I wouldn’t recommend copying more than that. And no, it’s not my rule, it’s Federal law.

tom humes-
Could you perhaps explain that comment in greater detail, or are you satisfied that what little you have offered us will be authoritative to those beyond your political group?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2011 11:32 AM
Comment #317014

Warped Reality:

Why don’t we put the wild speculation on hold and wait a month or two for this to pan out?

I am not engaging in wild speculation, and I’m also not going wait months. Because I can read right now what the experts on this topic are saying after examining what Loughner was writing about before he went out to commit political assassination.

For instance the Mother Jones article I linked to above was written by Justine Sharrock, who is an expert researcher on extremist militia movements. And The New York Times article I linked to quoted Mark Potok, who heads up research into extremist groups/crime for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Speaking of Mark Potok at SPLC, here’s a whole article from him:
Who is Jared Lee Loughner?

Also, here’s an article from Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates (which is a firm that tracks ultraconservative political movements):
Possible Racist and Anti-Immigrant Tie to Alleged Arizona Assassin

Stephen:

One intriguing question, which I think should give you pause, is where Loughner got the thousand dollars he need for the gun and the ammunition.

That is a good question. I read that Loughner bought the gun this past November.

steve miller, re: Oath Keepers, they are a scary bunch, yet I’ve heard that they’re far from being the most violent among the extremist groups.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2011 12:25 PM
Comment #317015

Sorry, that first link didn’t work. Here it is again:
Who is Jared Lee Loughner?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2011 12:32 PM
Comment #317016

J2T2 & Dude Those on the right sent dispicable e mails for sure but neither of you can tell me you on the left are innocent of dispicable talk. You two are making out that the left is a group of Angels and that to me IMO make you dillusional. But to blame one group of dispicable talk when the man said that those on the left haven’t contacted him yet. That to me is one sided. So shame on you J2T2.
Stephen, I don’t know where the man got the money, could have been he was collecting SSD or SSI and saved for a few months. Like you I don’t know and I am not going to assume he is right wing or left wing loon. I will wait until the facts come out.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 12:33 PM
Comment #317020

“One intriguing question, which I think should give you pause, is where Loughner got the thousand dollars he need for the gun and the ammunition.”

Thanks for this. I just won the bet I made with a friend that within a week there would be conspiracy theories floating around.

While I didn’t listen to all the speeches at the memorial I was pleased with all the God-talk. It must have been unnerving for atheists to have to listen to some of their idols proclaiming the existence and reliance upon God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 13, 2011 1:10 PM
Comment #317022

“But to blame one group of dispicable talk when the man said that those on the left haven’t contacted him yet. That to me is one sided. So shame on you J2T2.”

KAP, the civility project has been going on for 2 years, he is shutting it down. The hate mail from the far right has been ongoing for these 2 years. He has not heard from the left. Rationalize this as you will but remember it is a conservative Christian telling you the far right sends vile emails and doesn’t want to be civil. KAP it is not a matter of blame here it is a matter of fact. It is one sided but it is the vile emails from the right that is one sided. You can make excuses all you want but this is one of your own telling you the facts.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2011 1:21 PM
Comment #317025

So J2T2 You are saying to me that you on the left are mr & mrs goody two shoes who never say a dispicable thing to anyone only those on the right do. I’m no angel and have said some pretty nasty things at times, so you can’t tell me you haven’t. No matter if in e mails or talk on the street. It’s you who is making the sad excuses and pinning the blame on one group. Besides the right has it’s share of non christians and lunatic christians just like the left does. Besides J2, how do they know that the e mails came from the right and not some lunatic left winger poseing as a right winger, the civility group has some magical powers to determine if it is e mail from a right winger or left winger. Can you determine if an e mail is from a right winger or left winger? I Doubt It!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 1:46 PM
Comment #317026

tom humes:

The repeated charges and accusations against the Tea Party is leveled from ignorance. The Tea Party movement was to get voters to actively back candidates for Congress that would reduced size and outlay of the federal government. Is that extreme?

No, it isn’t leveled from ignorance. There is an overlap between the tea party and the anti-government extremist “patriot” and militia movements of the far right. This fact is being well documented.

“We Are at War”: How Militias, Racists and Anti-Semites Found a Home in the Tea Party
In places like rural Montana, the Tea Party is working hand-in-glove with Patriot movement radicals — including some with close ties to white supremacists and armed militias.

Quote from the article:

By 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization, counted only 131 Patriot groups left in the entire country. Suddenly, in 2009, it counted 512. The numbers continue to climb, and nearly all of this activity, according to Mark Potok, the director of the SPLC’s intelligence project, is closely associated with the rise of the Tea Party. “The ‘tea parties’ and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups,” the group’s March 2010 report states, “but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.”

Mark Pitcavage, intelligence director for the Anti-Defamation League, has also tracked “a general growth of anti-government rage and associated conspiracy theories.” Its most mainstream expression is the Tea Party, he says, “but it has also manifested itself on the extremes by a resurgence of the militia movement, the sovereign citizen movement, [and] other Patriot-type groups like the Oath Keepers.”

In his view, the rise of the Tea Party and the resurgence of the Patriot movement are “two sides of the same coin.”

David Barstow referenced the overlap between Tea Parties and Patriots in a widely read February 2010 New York Times article, writing that “a significant undercurrent” within the Tea Party has more in common with the Patriot movement than the Republican Party. But he failed to note a disturbing side-effect: the Patriot movement’s affiliation with the Tea Party has offered it a measure of mainstream validation. That validation has energized the movement and enabled it to recruit a new generation to “constitutionalist” Patriot-movement beliefs.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2011 1:52 PM
Comment #317027


Royal Flush, it was a trick meant to fool the American people. Everyone knows or should know by now that all liberals are godless socialists.

Posted by: jlw at January 13, 2011 1:56 PM
Comment #317030

Despicable:

Tucson tea party founder says Giffords to blame for getting shot

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2011 2:12 PM
Comment #317031

Great trick jlw…I believed them. Slight correction to your post…I never mentioned liberals, only atheists.

Since we have a number of self-described atheists writing here I would like to ask them a simple question. Many of you have described a belief in God as akin to believing in Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny, and that such belief exhibits a mental aberration, reliance on the supernatural to assuage fear, or to define their morality.

How then could atheists follow leaders who proudly and publicly proclaim such an affliction? How do you justify a belief in the other ideas and beliefs of these same leaders if they are so intellectually flawed and easily duped?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 13, 2011 2:23 PM
Comment #317032

KAP-
I hate it when people argue this way.

My argument, to summarize what’s above, is that the body of what you say is what leads people to their intuitive conclusions about your character.

The Democrats don’t have to be angels to be better about this than the Republicans. The Republicans don’t have to be utterly evil, either, to overdo things with the rhetoric.

Many people in the political arena are comparing the two speeches made yesterday, Palin’s speech with Obama’s.

Palin was concerned about covering her butt. The politics, the need to protect her image, not lose the political battle, led her to make a speech that seemed to observers to be rather small, rather egocentric. Obama’s speech, by contrast, wasn’t about himself, and didn’t spend much time protecting his backside. Instead, he showed some vision, some idea of politics beyond the simple manuevering of cynics and manipulators.

The Democrats have had something good to contribute to the discussion. They’ve had plans and proposals, they’ve had reforms and regulations to discuss. They’re not waiting around for a disaster to rush into action, they’re actually busy doing work. That is part and parcel of why I would say the Democrats do not deserve equal blame, because they were doing what they were supposed to do.

They weren’t running around, pushing conspiracy theories to back their platforms. They were, more often than not, citing facts, citing studies, citing reports, and appealing to people on the merits of the legislation.

Republicans, on the other hand, had people out there disrupting meetings, raging and shouting, making accusations of conspiratorial actions, making intimations like the ones I cited in the article above.

If the question is, who lived up to their responsibility, informed people well, didn’t float craziness, didn’t threaten the government that didn’t go their way, then the answer to me is the Democrats. I saw them do their job, so why should I go along with your claims of equal blame?

Royal Flush-
It’s not a conspiracy theory. I’m not suggesting any explanation. I’m simply saying that it’s the authorities’ believe that he couldn’t have afforded the weapon (which is expensive) on his own.

Perhaps it was a Marxist group. Perhaps it was a skinhead group, not well associated with the Tea Party, who hated her because she was Jewish. Perhaps it was a Tea Party group.

Or perhaps he sold something or cashed something in we didn’t know about.

However, that fact, by itself, makes any conclusions, including the exonerating kind, premature.

As for that Atheist thing?

Well, you’re confusing a disbelief in God with hostility towards those who do. Not everybody is a Richard Dawkins. Not everybody believes it’s a mental illness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2011 2:28 PM
Comment #317033


I have no doubt that the majority of those associated with the tea party have as their priority the reduction of government and government outlays. Is that extreme? It can be and may be considering the parts of government that the tea party is most concerned in cutting.

The tea party has not helped itself by denying that right wing extremist reactionaries have infiltrated the movement and are trying to use it to their advantage. Then there is the evangelical Christian part of the equation.

The Republicans have the same problem that the Democrats have only more so. That problem is how do you discourage extremism in a way that garners the extremist vote.

We are seeing this problem now with CPAC. Evangelical Christian groups are threatening to boycott unless gay conservatives are expelled.

Posted by: jlw at January 13, 2011 2:39 PM
Comment #317034

Stephen, Right now people on both sides better be covering their political behinds. Some bring up left wing trash sheets which have no more validity then the grocery store tabaloids and claim what ever is in them as gospel before the facts are out. We have seen this since Saturday starting with Krugman. Then you say liberals or progressives don’t stir the pot, Democrats don’t incite things? I’m not going to buy your liberal BS.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 2:53 PM
Comment #317035

“So J2T2 You are saying to me that you on the left are mr & mrs goody two shoes who never say a dispicable thing to anyone only those on the right do.”

KAP where have I said that? Deflect as you will KAP but your rationalizations are getting to be more ridiculous as the thread goes on. It is one of your own telling you that he hasn’t received emails from the liberals filled with hate speech for project civility. Not me KAP, Mark Demoss a conservative Christian that dares to tell you the truth. To bad your blinders are on to the point that you feel the need to discredit him with your silly conspiracy theory nonsense of liberals infiltrating the far right and sending hate emails. How foolish is that? About as foolish as telling the man, who in his honesty seems to now be under attack by you, he cannot tell the difference between a far right hate mail and a liberal hate mail. Shame on you KAP shame on you.

What next KAP you gonna tell me Mark Demoss is a liberal posing as an evangelical Christian conservative and is lying? Such absolute brainwashing by your movement leaders I must admit. Stop with the nonsense KAP it only makes you appear to have no character or integrity.


Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2011 2:58 PM
Comment #317037

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Well, you’re confusing a disbelief in God with hostility towards those who do.”

I don’t think so Mr. Daugherty. No confusion here. I and others have endured many hostile words and ridicule directed at me and them for no other reason than our belief in God and in Jesus as His son.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 13, 2011 3:06 PM
Comment #317040

J2T2, Can you tell me if an e mail is in FACT from a right wing nut or a left wing nut? It’s not what you say it is what you imply J2. you imply to me that no left winger would ever use dispicable language when sending e mails all because this guy states he never recieved one from the left does not mean I am questioning his honesty but questioning his ability to determine if the e mail did in FACT come from a right wing nut or left wing nut. I don’t believe you nor Demoss nor I can honestly state in fact it was e mails from either side when you don’t personnelly know the party that sent the e mail.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 3:13 PM
Comment #317041


Royal Flush, a trick? Maybe so, but one that I have heard from conservatives for two years now.

I am not one of those self-described atheists. I still believe in a creator god. I am a self-described anti religionist. I have no use for the dogmas that organized religions have used to entrap God; forcing him/her/it into sanctioning a particular religion or sect over others. These dogmas serve the purposes of priests and kings of all sorts more than the parishioners.

Posted by: jlw at January 13, 2011 3:18 PM
Comment #317042

Adrienna
You are out on a limb and I am running to get my saw for you to use on the trunk side of the limb.

SPLC and Potok have notority on left. I have researched their site and literature. They are left wing extremists. They are socialist in nature. If you have trouble discerning that, then you must be part and parcel of being a left wing extremist who is socialist in nature. That does not surprise me. You cannot pick a paragraph and make your case on it. This comes down to rhetoric from the left and it is certainly a hot item on this subject.

j2t2
Just because someone has a book and is carrying that book as one does when they go to church, it does not particularly mean it is the devine Word of God. Just because someone wears a necklace with a cross does not mean he is a follower of Christ. Just because there are other outwardly visible signs of Christianity does not mean that Christianity is present. Jim Wiers and Tony Campolo are testimony to that. Tiny Tim from Colorado Springs fooled a lot of people. He is still trying to fool a lot of people. There are very few leaders who are well known that have any creditability. Does Rick Waren, Bill Hybels, Steven Strader, Joel Osteen, Rick Joyner, Joyce Meyers, Paula White, and many more, have any credibility? They have followers like sheep. They tend to be dumb. There are extremely few television church programs that follow the teaching of Christ and apply it to their own lives. There are far too many businessmen parading as preachers, bishops, prophets, etc. Those I mentioned above are not evangelicals, they are money makers using the name of God to achieve their ends.

Posted by: tom humes at January 13, 2011 3:22 PM
Comment #317043

J2T2, After reading the article and searching for more info, Why is it that you left out that out of 535 letters sent to our senators and congressmen and women Only 3 signed up for this civility group. The names are Sen. J. Libermann I, Reps. Wolfe R. and Myrick R. WHY NO DEMOCRATS, unless you consider Libermann a Democrat. It seems to me neither party wants to be civil.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 3:30 PM
Comment #317044

KAP why would you think I am implying anything? I posted a link to Mark Demoss and his Civility project. He is the one that determined who the emails were from not me. This preposterous claim that it cannot be determined if it was left or right wing nuts sending hate mails is a straw man, KAP and delusional IMHO. You seem to be in denial and cannot accept that this man’s intentions were good. You can deflect as you will KAP but to defame this man with this type of conspiracy theory nonsense just to protect the conservative movement shows me that we are not that far from the German people in the ‘30’s. In fact it is downright scary how you will stoop to any level to protect hate mongers in the conservative movement.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2011 3:34 PM
Comment #317045

“Why is it that you left out that out of 535 letters sent to our senators and congressmen and women Only 3 signed up for this civility group.”

Because the subject was hate mail not who did or didn’t sign up for the project. I quoted one little paragraph not the entire article because I linked to it so who ever chose to could read the whole thing. Sorry KAP no conspiracy here.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2011 3:38 PM
Comment #317046

tom, come on man why try to discredit Demoss with this nonsense. He simply pointed out the facts. He was being honest. Why can’t you guys face the honesty from this man? You should look to him as a source of inspiration that he can be honest even when it may hurt him. Nope not you though, you seek to discredit him for not lock stepping to the extremist cause. The man showed some backbone, which is to his credit, and much more than I can say about those that try to discredit him as we have seen here.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2011 3:46 PM
Comment #317048

J2T2, I agree it was about hate mail but how can you determine who an e mail comes from if you don’t know the party. IMO it’s assumption and you linked it assumming no one would call you on it. And like I said out of 535 senators and congressmen and women only 3 signed and NONE were Democrats only Libermann who caucus’ with Democrats. So neither party IMO wants to be civil. So the question remains How do you determine which side the writer of an e mail is on if you personnelly don’t know the party?

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 3:58 PM
Comment #317050

Sorry KAP this straw man you present is really not worthy of discussion. You can brew up a conspiracy theory as a way of denial but until you have proof of such a conspiracy the “who actually wrote the hate mail” dog don’t hunt.

As far as the who did or didn’t sign the civility agreement it is still irrelevant to the hate mail issue. Nice diversion though.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2011 4:23 PM
Comment #317053

tom humes:

They are left wing extremists. They are socialist in nature. If you have trouble discerning that, then you must be part and parcel of being a left wing extremist who is socialist in nature.

DNFT

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2011 5:02 PM
Comment #317054

KAP-
When somebody talks about second amendment remedies, they are potentially talking about shooting civil servants, shooting people folks like me helped elect, and generally disrupting the rule of law, and the peace and order of our nation, all over a political disagreement most of us do not think severe enough to warrant such violence.

Yet you claim we’re virtually doing the same, merely by questioning that kind of rhetoric, and the responsibility of those who use it.

Why? Why is our exercise of our free speech rights of disapproval equivalent to Glenn Beck fantasizing about braining, poisoning, and strangling liberals? Is the mere disturbance of Republican’s peace of mind equivalent to the Tea Party’s threat to rebel against law and order itself?

As I mentioned before, incitement is a particular kind of speech. It means you are encouraging a particular action. In this case, Beck and others have encouraged meeting those who come across to enforce the new liberal policies, and even those who wrote them and signed them into law with violence.

That’s not the same as telling people that the conservative media’s irresponsible factored into the shooting. And that falls far short of the repeated claims by folks on the right that various actions of the Democrats are actually destroying this country, endangering all its freedom, and so on and so forth. I could say that there’s a sharp asymmetry between the intensity of vicious rhetoric that Democrats like myself are used to, and the kind of rhetoric your people react so disproportionately to.

Or, I could simply say that you can dish it, but it doesn’t seem like you can take it. There is no equivalence between fantasizing about poisoning Nancy Pelosi and telling folks like Sharron Angle off for threatening to literally rise up in arms if the election doesn’t go your way.

Royal Flush-
He told us to expect it. Yet at the same time he told us to love our enemies, do good to those who do evil to us. Yes, some folks can be hostile to us. That is not justification to assume that all such people have to be hostile, or if they are, must remain so.

tom humes-
Socialistic in nature? Left Wing extremist? Any other evidence than that?

The only people who follow such ad hominem arguments and agree with them, are the people who would agree with you anyways. That is why I don’t use them. They’re useless as a means of spreading a persuasive message beyond the ranks of the already persuaded. If you want to persuade on the substance, and not just employ divisive rhetoric, you need to do more than call people’s sources names.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2011 5:04 PM
Comment #317058

where did people get the rediculous idea that a glock 9mm costs 1000 dollars? i bought mine for 450 6 years ago… now my high end H&k 40cal that cost a grand but came with 4 mags and a laser dot sight… a lot of the info and speculation on this subject is ridiculously inflated, conflated.

Posted by: John in napa at January 13, 2011 6:38 PM
Comment #317059

sorry for the grammar mistakes… no i didn’t use spell-check.

Posted by: John in napa at January 13, 2011 6:39 PM
Comment #317062

Stephen, You and others here keep harping on the retoric of the right but yet when someone points out the same retoric used by the left you and others make lame excuses or will not admit that use. Why Stephen? Like I asked J2T2 “How can someone be sure of what side you are on by a hateful e mail recieved? The only thing I can do is assume what his affiliations are and that could be a wrong assumption. I think that is what Obama was speaking about pointing fingers and not having the facts straight. The left has brought out all kinds of accusations in every little left wing rag immaginable, yet I haven’t heard one right wing commentator, that I listen to, point a finger at the left. I don’t listen to Rush or Beck so don’t even go there and very rarely Hannity. You talk about 2nd amendment remedies, Sharon Angle brought that up once during her campaign, you on the left have brought that up numerous times you and the media, now who do you think is causing the most damage now you and the media or Sharon Angle. Hell, I forgot that she said that till you guys on the left brought it up. Maps with targets on them have been used by both sides to show which areas to concentrate most on while campaigning so this this is a moot point. Finger pointing needs to be toned down Stephen.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 7:40 PM
Comment #317063

If I recall correctly, Bob Beckle (a dem operative) on the Hannity TV show said a few nights ago that he is the person who first used the target idea. OK by me, great campaign idea at the time. Nothing wrong there.

My ears are still ringing from hearing Hillary in a campaign speech yelling at the top of her lungs that “we have a right to disagree with government.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 13, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #317066

You are correct Royal Flush, Bob Beckle by his own admission, admitted he was the first to use the cross hairs to target congressional seats.

KAP said, “Stephen, You and others here keep harping on the retoric of the right but yet when someone points out the same retoric used by the left you and others make lame excuses or will not admit that use. Why Stephen?”

I will tell you why. It is because this “rhetoric” changes the subject. It causes everyone to talk about something else. It gives democrats the opportunity to push gun control (again and again). With a liberal socialist, gun control ranks right up there with the other top issues like abortion, queer marriage, national HC, and welfare. It is hypocrisy of the first degree. This is supposed to make Republicans feel guilty about talking back to socialist and if we feel guilty enough, we may not push to repeal obamacare. But, sorry boys, the plan is repeal and it will happen.

Last Paragraph deleted for direct personal insults and use of inappropriate language.

Posted by: Z at January 13, 2011 9:38 PM
Comment #317075

In fairness, these two paragraphs are deleted as well. open use of curse words and personal attacks in return are not permitted. Let’s keep the tone a little more civil.

You have managed to show all of us the exact thing we have just been discussing here, the hate speech of those on the right towards those they disagree with politically. It seems to me it is your comments that are hypocritical.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2011 10:26 PM
Comment #317077

KAP, Royal Flush-
Well, he says he used it, so lets take him at his word.

If he used it like Sarah Palin did, he was wrong. That he was first doesn’t make it less of a bad idea for Palin. After all, if following his example is what Palin did, she’s going to go the way of that fellow Beckel worded for, back about 26-27 years ago: Walter Mondale.

You can talk about fingerpointing, but I’m simply saying that you are responsible for what you do, and I’ve demonstrated what they’ve done. It isn’t a truly awful thing to simply document a person’s actions. I have not gone so far as some to allege that he must be a Tea Bagger, and in my introduction to my entry here, I say this:

Causation? Not necessarily. Folks like Jared Loughner were going crazy and attacking people before things got this nuts in politics. Association? Not necessarily. The news I hear is that Loughner was a registered independent who didn’t even vote in the last election. The thing is, and the reason why most liberals said “Oh God, it’s a tea-bagger that did this.” is that when you beat a path to justifying a certain idea, the world is going to think of you first when somebody walks that path.

I’m explaining how the fingers got pointed in the first place, and why. If I’m blaming anybody, it’s to say that you are to blame for your own reputation. You can’t threaten political violence against a liberal government, and not be thought of when the political violence really happens to a Democrat, especially when it happens in a state that was notorious for confrontations involving Tea Party candidates and Republicans.

z-
If your only way to talk back to us is to use hostile rhetoric that threatens political violence, then by all means, we must be trying to shut you up.

But you see, the funny thing is, I give credit to the Republicans for being able to communicate better than that. It is a real question, and a matter of interest whether, given a civil tone, given an equal, calm explanation of both sides points, whether conservatives can win their arguments on the merits.

I think they can, if they muster the right arguments, the right evidence, and don’t support losing causes with excesses of rationalizating rhetoric

Are you saying they can’t? Are you saying that you must rely on emotional appeals that overwhelm people’s rational judgment, or else you lose?Gee, I’m sorry if you feel that way. I’m sorry if all you can do is scare people to death on thin BS.

As for your personal attack, let this be your last warning. I know you might cry censorship, but I’ve let more than enough critical, harsh words be leveled against my own, so I’m pretty sure people know that I’m not trying to stifle any negative argument.

The rules are clear on this site, and you agree to those terms under the rules for participation. Now, I don’t care where you live, or what the word s*** means there, but in most of the country, and in films rated by the MPAA, it’s considered a curse word. Now, you could censor it with four asterisk like I tend to do, and that would be fine, but you haven’t, and you’re trying to claime you’re somehow specially privileged to do so. That is not the case.

And undoubtedly calling somebody a hypocritical piece of s*** qualifies as a direct personal attack in most states of the union. So, understand that you have crossed a very clear line, and such lame arguments aren’t going to uncross it for you. I’m going to delete that last paragraph of yours, and give the standard warning. Additional posts with such material will simply be junked. And before you think how nice it might be try and overwhelm my editorial abilities, understand that I can pretty much erase anything you put on the board within seconds, so you will not win that battle.

Comment within the rules, and I’ll simply reply like I usually do. Break the rules that you have agreed to by using uncensored curse words and personal attacks, and I will take immediate action.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2011 10:43 PM
Comment #317080

Stephen You are impossible to reason with, you can’t give a straight answer, people ask you to answer a question with just yes or no and you write an essay that has absolutly nothing to do with the question. When challenged with facts of your parties misdoings you resort to it’s Republicans fault. So go your merry little liberal way, because there is no way to reason with someone who is unreasonable.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 11:24 PM
Comment #317081

KAP,

Your yes/no questions are generally misdirected and not part of the conversation. You want to be an editor here, turn in your application. Diversion only works when it is a surprise and unexpected. That is no longer the case, as you’ve used that ploy all too often.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 13, 2011 11:37 PM
Comment #317082

Dude, Show me what question is misdirected, Facts please.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 11:44 PM
Comment #317106

As I was saying before I so rudely offended the ears of some liberals: when the trial takes place and this murderer is found guilty, all the rhetoric from the left will fade away because all their hype will be found to be false. The liberals will do then what they do best; they will find another dead horse to beat. Sad, isn’t it? Their whole life is built around tearing someone else down.

“Stephen You are impossible to reason with, you can’t give a straight answer, people ask you to answer a question with just yes or no and you write an essay that has absolutly nothing to do with the question. When challenged with facts of your parties misdoings you resort to it’s Republicans fault. So go your merry little liberal way, because there is no way to reason with someone who is unreasonable.

Posted by: KAP at January 13, 2011 11:24 PM”

KAP, this ties in with the ability of the left to jump from one attack to another.

Posted by: Z at January 14, 2011 9:06 AM
Comment #317111

Z said: “The liberals will do then what they do best; they will find another dead horse to beat. Sad, isn’t it? Their whole life is built around tearing someone else down.”

This is EXACTLY the same kind of thinking that was the root of racism, slavery, and McCarthyism, where one views an ENTIRE CLASS of people to be bad or evil or wrong with a broad paint brush. Bigotry and Prejudice like that contained in your comment above is what fuels the bi-partisan extremism in this country - and culturally, it does have an effect on loose cannons like Loughner, from time to time. Look in the mirror before casting that next bigoted and prejudiced stone.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2011 10:25 AM
Comment #317118

z:

It is because this “rhetoric” changes the subject. It causes everyone to talk about something else. It gives democrats the opportunity to push gun control (again and again). With a liberal socialist, gun control ranks right up there with the other top issues like abortion, queer marriage, national HC, and welfare. It is hypocrisy of the first degree. This is supposed to make Republicans feel guilty about talking back to socialist and if we feel guilty enough, we may not push to repeal obamacare. But, sorry boys, the plan is repeal and it will happen.

Before reading this comment I’d just been reading an article that made this spot-on observation:

Conservatives, who vociferously argue against the language and legislation of social justice, on the basis that it all “normalizes” marginalized people and their lives and cultures (it does!), are suddenly nothing but blinking, wide-eyed naïveté when it comes to their own violent rhetoric.

They have a great grasp of cultural anthropology when they want to complain about progressive ideas, inclusion, diversity, and equality. But when it comes to being accountable for their own ideas, their anthropological prowess magically disappears.

Only progressives “infect” the culture, but conservative hate speech exists in a void.

That’s what we’re meant to believe, anyway. But we know it is not true. This culture, this habit, of eliminationist rhetoric is not happening in a vacuum. It’s happening in a culture of widely-available guns (thanks to conservative policies), of underfunded and unavailable medical care, especially mental health care (thanks to conservative policies), of a widespread belief that government is the enemy of the people (thanks to conservative rhetoric), and of millions of increasingly desperate people (thanks to an economy totally f***ed by conservative governance).

The shooting in Tucson was not an anomaly. It was an inevitability.

Above quote from this article:
Let’s Get This Straight: There Is No Progressive Equivalent to the Right’s Violent Rhetoric

Posted by: Adrienne at January 14, 2011 12:10 PM
Comment #317119

KAP-
You don’t want a straight answer, you want a concession you haven’t earned. You keep trying to pin me in some absurd logical trap, and what I’m doing is simply looking at the facts as I know them, and formulating a better approach to the issue at hand.

z-
My life here is built around advocating and pushing for policies that make sense outside the rarified world of Republican politics, that make sense in the real world.

I’ve argued against Republican fiscal policy that always seems to increase deficits, despite their fine promises, which promises jobs, but never delivers.

I’ve argued against Republican foreign policy, which seems to be built on alienating allies, making more enemies abroad, and losing or fatally overextending wars that they boasted they would win easily.

I’ve argued against Republican economic policy, which seems to favor running huge parts of the economy away from the light of day, with financial professionals only obligated to seek their own profit, not serve their investors, their clients, and their nation’s economic fortunes properly I’ve lived through several major economic collapses caused by this kind of careless attitude towards regulation and oversight.

I don’t argue to tear people down. I argue to challenge your assumptions, which you are willing to tear others down to defend. And, for your information, I write the essays I do, because I like to explain my points in good detail. I aim to speak to more than just the people who would naturally laugh and cheer me on.

It’s time for the right to face up to what it’s doing. That doesn’t mean shutting up. That means finding ways to make your points, if you can, that aren’t so focused on tearing down your opponent, or justifying your tearing down of your opponent. I think most people here can do that, but it will mean that they actually have to think about what they say, rather than repeat what Rush and Beck and others say, folks who make their money by stirring up controversy, stirring up fear and loathing from their audience.

I have to wonder why you need to hold onto that level of hostility, why you can’t calm down and discuss it as we are taught to discuss these things as adults. Why must we have all these adolescent quarrels about people picking on us by not simply giving our provocative language and messages a pass, or about the other side not being perfect, and therefore unfit to tell us anything?

Why can’t we discuss the actual matter as two equals?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2011 12:22 PM
Comment #317127

“Z said: “The liberals will do then what they do best; they will find another dead horse to beat. Sad, isn’t it? Their whole life is built around tearing someone else down.”
This is EXACTLY the same kind of thinking that was the root of racism, slavery, and McCarthyism, where one views an ENTIRE CLASS of people to be bad or evil or wrong with a broad paint brush. Bigotry and Prejudice like that contained in your comment above is what fuels the bi-partisan extremism in this country - and culturally, it does have an effect on loose cannons like Loughner, from time to time. Look in the mirror before casting that next bigoted and prejudiced stone.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2011 10:25 AM”

Mr. Remer, the problem is the beliefs of the left are “liberal socialism”. If you are a liberal, you are a socialist (not speaking of you personally, I don’t want to offend some liberal ears). The liberal left would rather be called “progressives”, because liberal socialism leaves such a bad taste in the mouth of the American people. I am a conservative and I would be willing to shout from the rooftop my conservative beliefs. On the other hand progressives are sneaky little critters; they want to be known as progressives, but they want to pass a liberal socialist agenda. They are not willing to shout from the rooftop what they really are and what they really want to do to America. So, I have no problem painting all liberal socialists with a broad brush, just as the left has no problem painting all conservatives with the same brush. It seems hypocritical for the left to make some of the 400+ statements in the past 2 articles in the blue column, plus your own post, and then act outraged that conservatives would say the same thing of the left. It’s alright for the left to make the outrageous statements of the past few days, but when conservatives say, “we have had enough” and begin to attack back, the left all of a sudden wants to calm down the rhetoric. This is what has concerned me about Stephen’s and Warped’s comments; they attack with unproven accusations, and then they want civility in discussion. This is hypocrisy

Stephen:

I hate to tell you this big boy, but you haven’t argued against anything, but, in your comments, you have pushed a socialist agenda. Your comments have nothing to do with discussion, but are filled with anger and nastiness. You don’t have to believe me; just read what other regular conservative writers have written.

“Why can’t we discuss the actual matter as two equals?”

Yes, why don’t we just all sit around the campfire and sing Kum ba yah. “Why can’t we all just get along?” Could it be we have nothing in common? You’re the one who started this BS, and now you want to be nice? I don’t think so. As usual, the liberals on WB are the last to get the message. Your political leaders, including BHO are now calling for the left to tone down the rhetoric.

Posted by: Z at January 14, 2011 1:49 PM
Comment #317133
Your political leaders, including BHO are now calling for the left to tone down the rhetoric.
z…. That’s only HALF of the equation that President Obama and the others are referring to. You and the rest in your belief group are not innocently tiptoeing through the tulips! Posted by: jane doe at January 14, 2011 2:24 PM
Comment #317136

Stephen, I to look for facts but when some left wing lunatic writer comes out not 2 hrs after the shooting and starts blameing everyone on the right for the crime is in your words absurd. Normal people wait until the investigation is complete before making any statements of who and what is to blame especially those in the media because those are the people we go to for info pertaining to the situation. You like some Republican and Democrat politicans when asked tuff questions try to beat around the bush with their answer because they don’t want to answer truthfully. Also IMO and I still say both parties are equally responsible for the retoric used in their political arguments.

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2011 2:40 PM
Comment #317139

Z-

I hate to tell you this big boy, but you haven’t argued against anything, but, in your comments, you have pushed a socialist agenda.

I invite all readers of this blog to see for themselves what I have argued for, and argued against.

They don’t have to take your word for it. They should read what I have written without relying on your misconceptions and preconceptions.

People can say just about anything they choose to, especially those who just want to engage in a little bit of bomb-throwing. You can run people around in circles, appealling to their fears and hatreds.

But how long would you last just calmly making points? How long would you last if you actually made statements that could be proven disproven, rather than just slapping one layer of interpretation on top of another?

I’ll point this out for your readers: you spend a whole lot of time declaring things about what I’ve said, but how much do you actually back all those conclusions with? In writer’s language, how many widows have you left behind, endings to arguments you never actually began with any premises?

There’s a limit to the value of such self-confident bloviating, and I think most people will find it quickly. How long, I wonder, before people just skip your comments, knowing what your standard spiel is?

KAP-
Left Wing lunatic writer. Okay.

1) Who?
2) What did that person really say?
3) How much are you relying on somebody else’s gloss of what he said for your conclusions?
4) What normal people? Since when do most people only begin speculating about who’s at fault when all the facts have come in?
5) I like nailing my answers to things down pretty solidly. I don’t like to be misunderstood, so I’m comprehensive.
6) How exactly do you get to the conclusion that it is equal? What’s your criteria for measuring this, or is this just a subjective personal measure?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2011 3:22 PM
Comment #317141
his is what has concerned me about Stephen’s and Warped’s comments; they attack with unproven accusations, and then they want civility in discussion. This is hypocrisy

What have I said that is unproven? The only accusation I made was that Loughner opposed our fiat money system and that opposition to fiat money is considered to be a right of center thought. Unless you can show me evidence that Loughner supported fiat money or that major left wing organizations advocate returning to the gold standard, I think I’m standing on solid ground.

I’ll gladly admit that leftist commentators recently have committed grave errors by trying to pin Loughner on the Tea Party and the larger conservative movement. Doing this sort of speculation is wrong at this stage. Maybe when this goes to trial and we have sworn testimony and all sorts of other evidence we’ll have a better picture. Until then, all we know is that he’s a crazy lunatic with rightist views on monetary policy. He could very well have leftist views on other issues; we just don’t know.

Is the Tea Party and the rest of the Right Wing movement responsible for what happened? Of course not. Jared Loughner is the only one responsible for his own delusions of grammar based conspiracies. The Right wing of this country has every right to continue their rhetoric in the same manner as before. After all, the first amendment protects one’s right to free speech, no matter how much I object. I just think both the left and the right should tone down their rhetoric a bit. We aren’t schoolchildren on the playground; we are adults, and we should conduct our business as adults and be civil with one another in both our words and out deeds.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 14, 2011 4:00 PM
Comment #317142

All this stuff the left calls rhetoric has been going on and yet when people die they claim with a straitforwerd face and finger they did it. I didn’t have anything to do with this. Yet before the tradegy they were big time trash talkers. The left sucks suds surely. How else do those bubbles form when they speak? To the left it is more important to discuss blame, rhetoric, more blame, more rhetoric, out side does not do that(what a sick joke), continued redirection from the story. Why not talk about the people who died and what they gave to society? Why not praise the doctors who are working overtime on Congressman Giffords? Why not thank God for those who stepped forward and brought the perp down at a high risk to themselves. There is much more to this event than your southpaw fat egos and brilliance (that doesn’t shine), that for some reason, needs to be exhibit number one.

I’m sorry that I was part of this posting. I feel that I did not live up to my Christian beliefs in participating in this sordid mess.

May God have mercy on all our souls.

Posted by: tom humes at January 14, 2011 4:03 PM
Comment #317143
Why not talk about the people who died and what they gave to society? Why not praise the doctors who are working overtime on Congressman Giffords? Why not thank God for those who stepped forward and brought the perp down at a high risk to themselves.

I’m sorry that I was part of this posting. I feel that I did not live up to my Christian beliefs in participating in this sordid mess.

May God have mercy on all our souls.

I agree 100%. Also don’t forget to thank God for the fact that Loughner’s bullet narrowly missed killing congresswoman Giffords.

WatchBlog is currently in desperate need for another article on a different topic so that we can move on from the absurd discussion here.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 14, 2011 4:14 PM
Comment #317149

Stephen, Krugman

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2011 6:14 PM
Comment #317153

WW I agree. This debate is going NOWHERE.

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2011 6:55 PM
Comment #317161

While mourning the loss of life and injuries in AZ we should also mourn this dismal fact.

“The nation’s abortion rate is so high because the large majority of abortions are done for convenience. According to a 2004 Guttmacher study of women who had had abortions, rape and incest each were cited by less than half of 1 percent of all women who underwent abortion. All total, 86 percent cited reasons of convenience: 25 percent said they weren’t ready for a child, 23 percent said they couldn’t afford to have one, 19 percent said they didn’t want any more children, 8 percent said they didn’t want to be a single mother or they had relationship problems, 7 percent said they were too young to have a child and 4 percent said they believed a child would interfere with their education or career.”

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=34441

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 14, 2011 7:56 PM
Comment #317162

I agree with Tom Humes, KAP, and possibly Warped, but Stephen can’t seem to get the message. He is still defending the perpetrators of the lies.

By the way Stephen, is that your pic on the link? What are you, about 15 years old? You look awfully young to have such a vast knowledge of all things. Maybe it’s an older pic.

Oh yes, I have read all your articles and they reek of socialism. Like I said you don’t argue against anything, but you do argue for social liberalism. You act outraged at the things said, but it is all a smoke screen. It’s simply meant to throw the blame on someone else.

“How long, I wonder, before people just skip your comments,”

Duh, I see you can’t. But I do believe a whole lot of people have your number. Now if you want to talk about people whose comments are ignored, I would have to say jane doe and Adrienne. They seem very angry and probably belong to NAG (national organization of gals).

Posted by: Z at January 14, 2011 8:00 PM
Comment #317163

Excellent point Royal; where is the outrage over the death of the innocents? Hypocrisy again….

Posted by: Z at January 14, 2011 8:03 PM
Comment #317165

No one innocent ever dies in an abortion.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 14, 2011 8:39 PM
Comment #317166

wow what a devolution… sad sad sad

how the *** is any of the abortion propaganda is on topic?

Posted by: John in napa at January 14, 2011 9:02 PM
Comment #317167

tom humes-
I don’t think anything needs to be resolved about the Congresswoman, her doctors, and the heroes there. What could I add to what they have done, to what’s been said about them? If I were a doctor, then I would tell you that I don’t need to heal those who are well. If I were a repairman, I would tell you that If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.

As a blogger, I will tell you that when things are right with the world, I don’t do posts about those things, because things have resolved as they should, and what is it that I would say, other than, good, on to solving something else.

My primary focus here is to tackle what I think is wrong with politics today, to educate people on what I think is the wisest policy. I’d say, ban the extended magazines. I’d say stop encouraging people to use their second amendment remedy when they haven’t exhausted their first amendment remedies. I’d say, step back and remember that the folks you’re calling traitors and degenerates are your neighbors, sometimes your friends, and sometimes even your family, and that you might want to approach them first as that, and try to persuade them of their own free will.

Political exchanges will not always be calm, but we don’t have to get carried away. I want you to consider something for a second here: That whether or not we Democrats have failed to uphold our end of things, it is entirely your choice, and your judgment how you deal with other people. If you choose the willfully alienate people, if you approach offending them with glee, then who are you to complain when they return hostility?
If you want peace, want respect, you cannot be so deliberately provocative, and hope to get what you want.

Love your enemy. Do good to those who do harm to you. Bless those who curse you. Forgive as you want to be forgiven. If you don’t start from these principles, you will never have any hope of playing a Christian part in any dispute.

Royal Flush-
While mourning the loss of life and injuries we should not exploit the attention the tragedy has brought for our own pet political issues. While telling others that they are exploiting the issue for political gain, this is also ill-advised.

z-
I’m 31. It is an older picture, but that’s more like 2006 or 2007.

As for your critique? “they reek of socialism?”

I support the free market that we talked about back when we had the Soviet Union to compare things to. Nowadays people think of the term in libertarian terms, but when I was a kid, I remember the main point being that while we had consumer and investor protections, the regulations and such, we weren’t a command economy, with all prices set at the top by the bureaucracy. It wasn’t this absolutist, anarchist sort of approach, where even after the worst recession since the great depression, people are still pushing for deregulation.

I believe in the market setting prices, though I don’t mind the odd strategic subsidy or tax break. I believe in people enjoying the fruits of their work. I don’t believe you can legislate economic utopia. But you can keep things stable enough, fair enough, and enough of a symbiosis between finance and consumer and investor interests, that people don’t even think of going to a socialist system.

I support a version of capitalism which realistically deals with the darker side of economic reality, which admits that some people will cheat, will lie, and will steal from others, given the chance.

I support a version that acknowledges that business interests cannot be the sole interests we tend to, and that public interests must come first on the government’s agenda, as they are meant to.

But hey, you say I support socialism. Interesting how you don’t even take the logical, proper meaning of my views into account as you say this. Is it just something you say to get people seeing red, rather than really reading what I write?

You say my outrage is a smokescreen, and that all I want to do is blame somebody else for something. Sorry, I haven’t written nearly five hundred posts over the last five years, free of charge, because I wanted to misrepresent what I actually believe. What you see is what you get. It’s not that complicated.

Of course, you might lose an argument or two right off the bat if you admit that. You have to have me as your enemy. You don’t know how to properly argue on the merits, or if you do, you haven’t demonstrated your skills at it.

Some blame me for writing longer comments. Well, I like doing things the right way, and I like people to know what I know, so they aren’t simply being asked to just take my word for it. I want to put it all there, so people have all the pieces of the argumetn I’m depending upon.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2011 9:10 PM
Comment #317168

Tell you what Warped, you can use that excuse when you stand before your Creator. I’m sure He will understand what you mean.

Posted by: Z at January 14, 2011 9:14 PM
Comment #317171

Considering that He is omniscient, I am sure He understands me; perhaps better than I understand myself. I’m just a sinful guy who’s trying to find his bearings on this planet.

Nevertheless, I just think it’s absurd to believe that personhood begins at conception, which seems to be a rather arbitrary point in the course of human development. Zygotes are much more similar to sperm and ova than they are to human fetuses after they are born. Countless sperm and ova perish every day; I don’t think God gave us the task of saving every single one of them. We live in an imperfect world; we slaughter animals in order to eat and countless acts of sin are committed every day. It is not our job to create heaven on Earth, that is God’s job. He’ll pick the time and place to do what he sees fit, but we will know neither the time nor the place.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 14, 2011 9:36 PM
Comment #317172

This debate is really getting rediculous

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2011 9:48 PM
Comment #317173

KAP,
I’ll take a debate over abortion over the previous nonsense, which was silly to the extreme.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 14, 2011 10:08 PM
Comment #317176

Warped, you would probably get the same results

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2011 11:50 PM
Comment #317192

Mr. Daugherty cautions me by writing; “Royal Flush-
While mourning the loss of life and injuries we should not exploit the attention the tragedy has brought for our own pet political issues

Staggering: U.S. passed 53 million abortion mark in 2010

Right…pet political issue involving 53 million deaths. Makes me wonder what he would consider a serious political issue.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 15, 2011 12:55 PM
Comment #317195

Royal Flush,
Why it is easy for a Man to deny a Woman her rights to reproductive organs, I wonder if you would agree that 53 million males need to have their reproductive rights taken from them?

In fact it would be cheaper to deny all Males their reproductive rights and eliminate the need for abortions.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 15, 2011 1:57 PM
Comment #317196

Warped Reality,

Try this one if you want to change the direction of debate…of course, first you must redefine the word debate for the set of principle protagonists currently using WB…but think about this anyway:

The same people who say the guns don’t kill people, people kill people, are the ones who say we should not provide realistic sex education in schools or provide condoms to teenagers, because just the suggestion of sex will cause our youth to start having sex in the streets…hmmm…apparently those two things are different.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 15, 2011 2:27 PM
Comment #317197

Right on, Henry!!

Posted by: jane doe at January 15, 2011 2:42 PM
Comment #317200

Geeze Louise, this thread has de-evolved into serious derailment absurdity. It seems like whenever the christian authoritarians make an appearance and no matter what the topic happens to be, it’s always a good time to put our feet up in the stirrups for their very favorite topic: Abortion!

z:

By the way Stephen, is that your pic on the link? What are you, about 15 years old? You look awfully young to have such a vast knowledge of all things. Maybe it’s an older pic.
Oh yes, I have read all your articles and they reek of socialism.

Now if you want to talk about people whose comments are ignored, I would have to say jane doe and Adrienne. They seem very angry and probably belong to NAG (national organization of gals).

Funny! You’re the one who has been angrily and immaturely flinging the personal attacks and idiotically repeating the far right “socialist” mantra because you’ve been completely unable to debate the actual topic.

Btw, I’ve never heard of that NAG organization, but if it exists, I’d likely rather hang out with those gals than any bats**t crazy Right Wing Militia/John Birch Society/Tea Party organizations.

Note to fellow liberals/progressives:

In case some of you were thinking that it is somehow a recent phenomena what these righties are doing with the paranoid and overwrought repetitions of the “socialist” and “communist” labels, well, this isn’t at all new. As David mentioned earlier in the thread, this accusation is at least old as McCarthyism.
And just to give an example of how far back this stuff really does go: this old song was recorded the year I was born.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2011 3:31 PM
Comment #317202

I believe it is grotesque how some can shrug off 53 million lives lost and then pretend to grieve over the loss of just a few other lives they consider more worthy. No morality here…primarily just convenience as stated in the link.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 15, 2011 4:20 PM
Comment #317204

Royal Flush
jane doe and Adrienne are showing hateful tongues. It could be that their mothers did not abort them and they are angry about that. Just guessing.

Posted by: tom humes at January 15, 2011 4:43 PM
Comment #317205

As David mentioned earlier in the thread, this accusation is at least old as McCarthyism.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2011

Does that make it any less true?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 15, 2011 4:55 PM
Comment #317209

RF,

Embryos aren’t people. They are more similar to sperma/ova than they are to fetuses or infants.

TH,

It could be that their mothers did not abort them and they are angry about that. Just guessing.

How exactly is this remark productive? It does not contribute to the discussion and does nothing other than show your “hateful tongue”

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 15, 2011 5:35 PM
Comment #317210

So we have been told by some Warped. Ask the mother and father who have unwillingly lost an embryo or fetus and you will get a another opinion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 15, 2011 5:39 PM
Comment #317211

The link I provided has found that over 80% of abortions are for convenience. Is it not convenient to prevent a pregnancy in the first place? Would that not be the moral position?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 15, 2011 5:42 PM
Comment #317212

Warped Reality said: “Nevertheless, I just think it’s absurd to believe that personhood begins at conception, which seems to be a rather arbitrary point in the course of human development.”

So tell me WR, on what do you base this knowledge? Is it just something you believe, feel, or suspect? Since the subject of God has come up and you have attempted to tell us about God’s omniscience, then I would think your answers would be based loosely on what God says. If we do that, then we would have to go to God’s Word (the Bible) to see what God says about when life begins. We have 2 good examples given:

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

Three thoughts might be found in these verses: First, God knew who Jeremiah was when he was in his mother’s womb and secondly, God called the thing in Elizabeth’s womb a “babe” and not a fetus, and the baby leaped when it came in the vicinity of Mary and her child. Let me ask you WW; was Jesus the Savior of man and the Son of God when he was in the womb, or was it only after he was born?

Concerning Stephen’s original post; there are new polls out, claiming last weekend’s characterizing of the shootings as political and caused by the right appears to be backfiring on the democrats. Only a very small percent believe conservative talk shows caused the murders.

Posted by: Z at January 15, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #317213

Warped
Since you have unilaterally declared that conception is not the beginning of a new life, Then in your absurd consideration, when is the newcomer a new life? It does have a heart beat at 6 weeks. So somewhere between conception and 6 weeks would be a good guess on your part. You have declared yourself in error. I just wanted to hear your guess. Most abortions occur after 6 weeks also. So this is the willful taking of another life. Commonly called murder.

Posted by: tom humes at January 15, 2011 6:50 PM
Comment #317218

God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived.

The Gospel of Luke was written by a man, possibly Luke, but not God. Nevertheless, the word that appears in the gospel is βρέφος, not babe. In Ancient Greek βρέφος can either mean fetus or infant.

Yeshua was the Savior of Man and Son of God from the beginning of creation (ie before He was in Miriam’s womb).

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 15, 2011 8:37 PM
Comment #317219

I consider personhood to begin in the 2nd or 3rd trimester when the brain has sufficiently developed to allow for sentiment thought.

I support criminalizing partial birth abortions and other abortions done in the third trimester unless the life or health of the pregnant woman is at risk.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 15, 2011 8:40 PM
Comment #317223

tom humes:

jane doe and Adrienne are showing hateful tongues. It could be that their mothers did not abort them and they are angry about that. Just guessing.

WTF? What the hell is your problem tom humes? This is a perfect textbook example of trolling.

Royal Flush:

Does that make it any less true?

Well, obviously this is what all the Tea Partiers seem to want to believe — but in fact, suspecting everyone on the left side of the political aisle of being communists happens to be just as paranoid, f***ed up and wrong now as it was back in the McCarthy era.
And that being the case, every time you erroneously toss around that label exactly the way that McCarthy did perhaps we should start quoting what Joseph Welch said to the rabidly paranoid Senator:

Have you no sense of decency, sir(s), at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2011 9:38 PM
Comment #317224

Warped; if you do not believe the Bible, then there is no sense continuing the conversation.

Comment #317171
Considering that He is omniscient, I am sure He understands me; perhaps better than I understand myself. I’m just a sinful guy who’s trying to find his bearings on this planet.
Nevertheless, I just think it’s absurd to believe that personhood begins at conception, which seems to be a rather arbitrary point in the course of human development. Zygotes are much more similar to sperm and ova than they are to human fetuses after they are born. Countless sperm and ova perish every day; I don’t think God gave us the task of saving every single one of them. We live in an imperfect world; we slaughter animals in order to eat and countless acts of sin are committed every day. It is not our job to create heaven on Earth, that is God’s job. He’ll pick the time and place to do what he sees fit, but we will know neither the time nor the place.
Posted by: Warped Reality at January 14, 2011 09:36 PM

How do you know he is omniscient?

How do you know he understands you?

How do you know you are sinful?

How do you know God created the heaven and the earth?

How do you know if God will pick the time to do what he sees fit?

Point being, you know none of these things except you learn them from God’s Word. So you are saying you believe God’s Word because you make the previous statements and then you make this comment:

“The Gospel of Luke was written by a man, possibly Luke, but not God. Nevertheless, the word that appears in the gospel is βρέφος, not babe. In Ancient Greek βρέφος can either mean fetus or infant.”

So you fall back on the old liberal adage, that the Bible was written by man. So WR, was it written by man and cannot be believed or was it written by the inspiration of God and can be believed.

The Bible says that is was written by men who were inspired by God;

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

The word inspiration is the Greek word, Θεόπνευστος: and it means divinely breathed in: - given by inspiration of God.

You are also incorrect on the definition of the word “babe”;

“The Gospel of Luke was written by a man, possibly Luke, but not God. Nevertheless, the word that appears in the gospel is βρέφος, not babe. In Ancient Greek βρέφος can either mean fetus or infant.”

The word is βρέφος, but the meaning is: an infant (properly unborn) literally or figuratively: - babe, (young) child, infant. Taken from Strong’s Concordance, one of the most accredited concordances of Hebrew and Classical Greek. The is no mention of fetus.

“Yeshua was the Savior of Man and Son of God from the beginning of creation (ie before He was in Miriam’s womb).”

Jesus was in the womb of Mary, not Miriam, but perhaps you misunderstood the question: “was Jesus the Savior of man and the Son of God when he was in the womb, or was it only after he was born?”

We know that Jesus existed with the Father in eternity past, but perhaps I should have asked, “was the baby in Mary’s womb a fetus or was it the Son of God and if a fetus, at what point in the pregnancy did it become the Son of God”?

Remember, your answer is based upon whether you believe God’s Word or not. If you do not believe it, then the whole subject is moot, but if you do believe it, then what does Jesus become, a baby or a fetus?

Posted by: Z at January 15, 2011 10:35 PM
Comment #317225

What kind of woman laces their convesation with foul language? I have to believe that a person who uses the most base language is ignorant and incapable of holding an intelligent conversation. Enough said…

Posted by: Z at January 15, 2011 10:39 PM
Comment #317226

Adrienne
What did McCarthy do that so makes you angry? I don’t think you know a thing about McCarthy. You are consistent about coming off the wall with diatribe and vitriol, which is always full of holes so much that swiss chees blushes while still packaged. I have never heard a female say so many hateful and extreme left wing thoughts on a blog as you have. Even liberal is to conservative for you. You posted something earlier that I just let go, but you made the comment of womens lives being saved by abortion. What a bunch of poppy cock spooned fed to you by PP. You should look up the numbers of women who have died because of an abortion.

Posted by: tom humes at January 15, 2011 10:57 PM
Comment #317227

Z,

Pretty sexist statement. You one of those ‘keep ‘em pregnant and down on the farm’ types?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 15, 2011 10:57 PM
Comment #317228

Warped Reality,

You did not like the other subject (the thread), so you started this one, and perhaps got into one even more contentious than the other one. How about this one?

The same people who say the guns don’t kill people, people kill people, are the ones who say we should not provide realistic sex education in schools or provide condoms to teenagers, because just the suggestion of sex will cause our youth to start having sex in the streets…­hmmm…app­arently those two things are different to those folks.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 15, 2011 11:00 PM
Comment #317229
How do you know he is omniscient?

How do you know he understands you?

How do you know you are sinful?

How do you know God created the heaven and the earth?

How do you know if God will pick the time to do what he sees fit?


Because the Ruach HaKodesh and God’s word as revealed in Scripture tell me so.


As far as I am aware, the only words of the Tanak and the B’rit Hadashah that were physically written by God were the Ten Commandments. I believe everything else was the result of divine inspiration, but the physical writing was accomplished by men and women.

Mary is not a Hebrew name, but rather a translation of the Hebrew name Miriam into English (via the Greek Μαρία).

βρέφος was commonly understood by Ancient Greeks to mean an either an unborn entity (aka an embryo or a fetus) or a newly born child. Strong’s Concordance doesn’t dispute that. Thayer says it a bit more explicitly.

Regarding Yeshua, I assume the fetus became the Son of God after it’s brain became developed enough. This probably happened during the 2nd or 3rd trimester.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 15, 2011 11:24 PM
Comment #317231

Royal Flush, z, tom humes-
You know, taking this tack is an exercise in futility, and not because these people can’t be reached by grace.

Folks don’t agree on what the nature of the soul is, much less when in the pregnancy humanity comes into the picture.

You’re making the mistake of arguing against these people as if they believe you’re right, but have decided to deliberately contradict you, just to avoid losing, or admitting to what badness they’re signing onto.

But they don’t share your paradigm for understanding the development of a child. Because they don’t share that, the whole tens of millions murdered line seems absurd to them, a vilification, a demonization. It just seems like vanity to them, that you think you have the right to tell them what to do, that you think that you’re better than them.

It’s not you that’s going to hold them account, and your job is not to hold them in judgment, much less do it on a political site.

My personal belief? The bible, however holy and full of wisdom it is, is a pale reflection of a sketch of a shadow of a doubt of what the real word of God is. The real word of God is what caused the world to be, and we are in no way capable of understanding the word of God fully, as we are now. The world itself is just a shadow of the word of God.

The bible? I believe it’s divinely inspired, but I also believe that human beings introduce imperfection into anything and everything they touch. However, I believe that the core messages, the core wisdom is there, within the work, within the larger scale elements of the stories that are more robust than the easily fouled up details. To believe otherwise is to believe that all the different, disagreeing translations are simultaneous the same work of God. I find it easier to believe that God would employ a robust basic story which would resist subversion by mistranslation. Otherwise, the multitude of translations becomes a sick joke, or you have people fighting over which translation is the best, and even then, you introduce the fallibility of that person’s skill of interpretation.

I would rather believe man fallible, and God infallible, than believe God would intentionally sow discord among all those who pray to him.

I also believe that those who try to force people to convert to God usurp God’s place. When you force or try to browbeat somebody into belief, you’re really trying to force your will on them, and when and if they conceded, they’re giving into you, trying to satisfy or reflect you, not God.

z-
What kind of woman laces their convesation with foul language? I have to believe that a person who uses the most base language is ignorant and incapable of holding an intelligent conversation. Enough said…

As far as intelligent conversation goes, I believe intelligence gives people the ability, the choice to speak in whatever mode they see fit. You, sir, do not get to declare who is fit and unfit in terms of holding an intelligent conversation.

tom humes-
What did McCarthy do? caused needless pain and suffering, needless division. Ruined innocent lives, destroyed reputations, and glorified the kind of conspiracy theories tht even today bear their pernicious fruit.

The tone of your argument may be considered part of that. What is it that has you basically treating her like the worst person ever?

It’s so easy to rail on people without much substance, to just say a person is so this, and so that, In the end, though, You’re just arguing yourself in circles.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 16, 2011 12:11 AM
Comment #317232

SD Wrote:

“Some blame me for writing longer comments. Well, I like doing things the right way, and I like people to know what I know, so they aren’t simply being asked to just take my word for it. I want to put it all there, so people have all the pieces of the argumetn I’m depending upon.”

The length of one’s writings has nothing to do with the quality of one’s writings.

After all, just take a look at Obama’s Health Care Bill! ;)

Clarity, conciseness, superfluousity, economy of words, coherence and editing go a LONG way.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at January 16, 2011 12:17 AM
Comment #317233

Stephen believes the Bible is like the Constitution, an evolving document. It contains truth, but is not truth. It’s getting deep.

Posted by: Z at January 16, 2011 12:47 AM
Comment #317234

SD
I have covered this several times on this site. Who are those innocent lives he ruined? They never existed. You are only taking Edward R. Murrow or his ilk and adding what you want. You brag about getting facts. When it comes McCarthy nearly everyone on this blog knows nothing about the Senator. Whatever you think you know came from biased writings of people who had an ax to grind. You need to get your “facts” correct before putting those chocolate covered shoes in your mouth.

“It’s so easy to rail on people without much substance, to just say a person is so this, and so that, In the end, though, You’re just arguing yourself in circles.”
That is exactly what you do with the Senator. On this issue you are dead in the water.

“You, sir, do not get to declare who is fit and unfit in terms of holding an intelligent conversation.”
And neither do you.

You are trying to tell me how I understand, believe, etc. How pretentious can you be? You have no knowledge of me. And you don’t have a lock on righteousness. Far from it. Likewise for myself. When people say oh, you’re one of those, it makes me laugh. They are stupid stereotyping self-serving screechers.

Posted by: tom humes at January 16, 2011 12:49 AM
Comment #317235

tom humes, if this is the last thing I get to say on here, then so be it. You have been, and continue to be, one of the most ignorant, narrow minded, trash talking, garbage spewing posters that I’ve encountered in the 7 or 8 years I’ve been reading/participating here. There is not one person here who has commented in opposition to you, who has been spared your scathing comments. The only thing it shows is that you’re far too simple-minded to converse logically and sensibly, so you resort to bashing all who disagree with your sentiments.

Posted by: jane doe at January 16, 2011 1:22 AM
Comment #317237

“Excellent point Royal; where is the outrage over the death of the innocents? Hypocrisy again….
Posted by: Z at January 14, 2011 08:03 PM”

Z you want some hypocrisy go to the source my friend. The fascist conservative wing of the repubs is the best source of hypocrisy on the market today. Where is the fascist/ conservative outrage over the innocents in Iraq that died when we invaded and occupied their country . Where is the outrage from the fascist conservatives over those that die by lethal injection in our prison system? Choke on your own hypocrisy.


“jane doe and Adrienne are showing hateful tongues. It could be that their mothers did not abort them and they are angry about that. Just guessing.
Posted by: tom humes at January 15, 2011 04:43 PM”

Tom you win the Julianne Potter award. This is the most vile and ignorant of comments I have ever seen posted here on WB. It shows the rest of us exactly how low those that claim to be Christians will stoop to insult others. Think about what you have said Tom and explain just how Christian of a statement that is.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119738/quotes

Of course Adrienne said it best- have you no decency Tom?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 16, 2011 3:04 AM
Comment #317240

Royal Flush,
Why the death of one innocence is to many I find it amazing that men will not accept their role in abortons. For why a Lady may at the time have serveal good logical reason not to want to carry the child full term or even expose them to this world. Not once have I heard a Man saying that he would willingly give up his Reproductive Rights.

No, 51 milliom lives ended because some male somewhere could not resist temptation, yet all we hear about is how evil the women are; however, no one even speaks of the billions who have lost their lives over the same time frame due to stravation or lack of medical supplies. Instead, we hear from the same Pro-Lifers that over population is killing the world

And the mere fact Women out number men in the world I guess the democratic thing to do is to order all Males be eliminated of their Reproductive Rights. For not only would it stop anortions, but halt the over population of the world at the same time.

Because although it will take some time and a lot more education to explain why abortion exists in the first place. as a morality problem I do believe if you end life minus 9 months or when the person are over 999 years old by denying them food, water, or the other basic neccessities of life your fate is still the same. So why do you not cry for the billions who life is cut short, but only for the 51 million who has lost their life while still in the womb while the Man gets off with nothing?

However, we do today have the ability to stop such madness. And while it will take some time before our children are ready to talk about it. Test Kits are on the shelfs which can tell a lady when to reject the advancements of a male. Now the question is will the Pro-Lifers support us given them to teenagers or like their parents reject the idea that a Woman should be able to tell a man no and be done with it?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 16, 2011 4:20 AM
Comment #317241

These ultra-conservative folks are scared to death of abortion. They know that when the female of our species figure out they no longer need the male for any fundamental reason, they will start aborting only male children. That way women will no longer have to put up with trolls on blogsites…(:~))…er…wait!…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2011 6:43 AM
Comment #317243

The same people who say the guns don’t kill people, people kill people, are the ones who say we should not provide realistic sex education in schools or provide condoms to teenagers, because just the suggestion of sex will cause our youth to start having sex in the streets…­hmmm…app­arently those two things are different.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2011 6:47 AM
Comment #317246

As I said before this debate whet from bad to worse
Dude nice comment LOL.

Posted by: KAP at January 16, 2011 9:43 AM
Comment #317249

of course the ultra religious are terrified of abortion it goes against their beliefs…to be a religious person requires you to soundly believe in magic…not a sane rational thinker among em.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 11:41 AM
Comment #317251

I believe abortion for the sake of convenience is wrong.

Mr. Daugherty with all good intentions and a Christian appears to love the sinner by ignoring the sin.

Henry with all good intentions appears to blame men for the sin.

And others, see no sin.

Sin, being defined simply by me as any transgression of God’s will.

I will not argue theology and contrary to Mr. Daugherty’s charge, I am not attempting to convert anyone.

I am however, as a Christian, charged with bringing God’s truth to the world as best I can in my very limited way. For the unbeliever I pray that they may receive God’s grace and with grace come to understand His will.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 12:06 PM
Comment #317252

…to be a religious person requires you to soundly believe in magic…not a sane rational thinker among em.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011

Really John? How then do some folks follow leaders who are, or at least portray themselves, as religious? Are Obama, Reid, Pelosi and other prominent democrats who profess religious beliefs also exempted as “sane rational thinkers”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 12:11 PM
Comment #317255

they are politicians silly, professed belief is not actual belief… show me a popular politician and i will show you someone willing to say anything to be liked/believed/voted for. actions speak louder than words… Jesus said his followers would be no part of the world just as he was no part of the world. this puts politicians firmly in the “not followers of Christ” category

people follow those that have similar beliefs or goals as they have. politicians earn their bread and butter by being all things to everyone as much as possible… don’t delude yourselves.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment #317256

john Kerry and John McCain are both good examples of what i previously stated. their views change as the political winds change. politicians are chameleons

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 12:56 PM
Comment #317257

Thank you John for the explanation. I am grateful that I don’t live in a mind that believes all politicians are hypocrites about their religious beliefs.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 12:57 PM
Comment #317258

oh i imagine that there are a few among em that are genuine, however i believe that such individuals are the rare exception rather than the rule.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 12:59 PM
Comment #317259

Just curious John but I believe both Kerry and McCain were Christians first and later became politicians. How does that track with what you write?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 1:03 PM
Comment #317260

for the record i often in my style of debate will take the role of devils advocate and take the opposing view solely to incite debate. i don’t feel that any stance i have is written in stone, there have been many instances even here on watchblog where i have read an opposing view and was swayed to the argument of the poster.

i often come off as bitter or angry, sometimes those stances incite the most telling responses. i apologize if i have in the past offended folks here, please realize i have no ill will to anyone here nor do i believe that any of you…minus the Trolls, have a view that is any less important than my own.

the foundation of the scientific method is the collecting ALL possible data on a subject then comparing correlations then verifying causation, then reproducing your findings to verify the validity or voracity of your subject.

with respect i thank you for your comments all.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 1:06 PM
Comment #317261

John in napa,

>oh i imagine that there are a few among em that are genuine, however i believe that such individuals are the rare exception rather than the rule.

In that case refer to 317249.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2011 1:07 PM
Comment #317262

i think that being a political being is something that is inherent in who these people are. the fact that one came before the other is irrelevant religion/politics. like a personality type… a politicians goal in life is to be liked in an effort to gain support to promote their agenda.

they are actors, some of course are good hearted folks with altruistic goals. again exceptions to the rule.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 1:12 PM
Comment #317263

The profession/confession of faith…meaningless drivle. Good faithful people show their faith through actions. Teachers of faith are no better than any other recruiter…about as honest as an ambulance chaser or politician. Without honesty, faith is as useless as teats on a boar.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2011 1:14 PM
Comment #317264

couldnt agree more dude

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 1:16 PM
Comment #317266


“I believe abortion for the sake of convenience is wrong.”

I believe that allowing a child to grow up in poverty is wrong, especially in a Christian land of plenty.

That great liberal socialist, Bill Clinton signed the socialist NAFTA Trade Agreement at the behest of capitalist Wall Street. He signed the socialist Chinese Trade Agreement, at the behest of capitalist Wall Street. He also signed the socialist inspired Gramm Bliley Leach Act, again at the behest of capitalist Wall Street.

The liberal socialists also helped bring in millions of socialist workers from Mexico for the capitalist corporations, capitalist contractors and small business owners, and Joe the anti-socialist Christian conservative who needs work done on his house.

Posted by: jlw at January 16, 2011 1:54 PM
Comment #317268

jlw writes; “I believe that allowing a child to grow up in poverty is wrong, especially in a Christian land of plenty.”

Well help them jlw. If you’re not in poverty yourself why not bring them some food paid for out of your own pocket? Just who is doing this “allowing” you speak of?

From your statement one could conclude that you believe dead is better than poor.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 2:05 PM
Comment #317269

just a question to all of you religious folks… eye for an eye tooth for a tooth life for a life. what would you do to women that have abortions? their reasons are unimportant.
i find it hard to grasp that someone that is pro death penalty, is anti abortion.

please explain this seeming hypocritical stance i see so often.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 2:14 PM
Comment #317270

john writes; “just a question to all of you religious folks… eye for an eye tooth for a tooth life for a life. what would you do to women that have abortions? their reasons are unimportant.”

Two false assumptions john. Try rewording.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 2:17 PM
Comment #317271

splain it to me then RF… what assumptions are false and how?

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 2:21 PM
Comment #317272

ok how about … how can religious folk be pro vengeance / murder?

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 2:22 PM
Comment #317275

John…a false assumption regarding vengeance/murder and that the reasons for abortions are unimportant. Try again.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #317276

so until i word it correctly so your answer will fit my question you refuse to comment on it? is that it?

either all life is sacred or none is.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 2:35 PM
Comment #317277

never mind

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 2:37 PM
Comment #317280

Sorry John…can’t answer a question with false assumptions. For example; If I wrote all socialists in the US are democrats, John is a democrat, is John a socialist? Could you answer that question intelligently?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 2:42 PM
Comment #317281

joh is registered green john is a social liberal so in some sense i am a socialist…john is also a fiscal conservative. john does not fit into a box. at least i attempt to answer the question in good faith.guess that makes me unique

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 2:45 PM
Comment #317282

AHHH…now you got it John. The questions you posed allowed no room for my definition of murder or vengeance or reasons for abortions. I could have written an answer but I first would have had to define what I believe you mean and then explain what those terms mean to me. And then, I would answer based upon my meaning which wouldn’t answer your question. Since I am not a contortionist…I asked for clarification. OK

And yes, you are unique.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 2:57 PM
Comment #317283

Royal Flush,
Why I don’t blame the Man for the sin, I do believe they shoulder most of the responsibilty. For why I have never meet a Lady who who couldn’t get her way, the fact almost all males throughout history do not know or even care when a female cycles only adds to the problem.

And why 40 years ago we lacked the ability to know these things, today we have test kits for just such information. So again let me ask if you and others would allow such kits to be given to our teenagers in order to stop the need for abortions? For IMHO the sin is not knowing.

John of NAPA,
You say you like to play Devils’ Advocate. Well, who gave you Self-Awareness and Self-Knowledge. For certainly without your Parents’ Love and your Neighbors’ Understanding there would be no 3 AM feedings, crying all night, and surely no diaper changes.

Yet, even “the foundation of the scientific method is the collecting ALL possible data on a subject then comparing correlations then verifying causation, then reproducing your findings to verify the validity or voracity of your subject.” still cannot explain how time after time a Human can ask a question they have no clue of how to answer, but time after time will discover an answer they cannot only deny, but defend themselve against.

So how is that possible?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 16, 2011 2:58 PM
Comment #317284

henry,
i make no real attempts to explain my personal views on such matters, my ultimate goal here honestly is to really understand what others views are and how they come to the conclusions they do, because as you said “Human can ask a question they have no clue of how to answer” if you know how to answer the question it invalidates the question, the search for understanding and knowledge, along with the wisdom to apply it is the second most important aspect of being human. the first is reproduction.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 3:03 PM
Comment #317285

i believe that is the source of the abortion debate it isnt a moral issue at all. it is a biological imperative to sustain the species hardwired into all life on the planet.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #317286

jane doe
Do you call all people who are strangers to you and that you disagree with “simple-mindes”, ignorant”, or “narrow-minded”. To you I am a stranger and you used those phrases to describe me. Your are wrong, of course.

I would like to hear your definition of those words you used to describe me and relate to me the basis of your observation.

Your construct sound pretty hateful to me, but I could be wrong. When people use those phrases, it usually means they disagree with another party but don’t know how to respong in a saneful manner. So they go the way of the hateful, spiteful rant.

Posted by: tom humes at January 16, 2011 3:12 PM
Comment #317293

even advocates of abortion find it distasteful. it sucks but until we get past the hype that its morality, and realize its biological and it is something that is common throughout nature,(as is homosexuality, though that’s another topic) such as wolves eating their young…we will never find a way to remove it from our nature.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 3:40 PM
Comment #317295

Henry writes; “And why 40 years ago we lacked the ability to know these things, today we have test kits for just such information. So again let me ask if you and others would allow such kits to be given to our teenagers in order to stop the need for abortions.”

Henry, there are many means available today for avoiding pregnancy. However, unless and until we return to Christian values and teach our children how to live responsibly, they will be of little value. The link I provided showing 53 million abortions since Roe V Wade found that more than 80% of abortions were performed for convenience.

If that is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, even the convenience of easy to purchase and use contraceptives has not persuaded millions of men and women to use them.

Until there is a change in the thinking of folks who have unprotected sex, there is no reason to believe that abortions will abate.

Henry…let me make a simple comparison. I brush and floss twice every day for good dental hygiene and so I don’t have to face the expensive, time consuming, and sometimes painful visits to the dentist to repair what I have neglected.

We do teach our children to brush their teeth from an early age right? If one has no physical disabilities, surely one can put on a condom or take a pill in less time than it takes to brush their teeth.

So, what is lacking that results in these millions of abortions? Certainly it’s not the means to avoid conception which is readily available. It is, I believe, the mindset that is terribly screwed up. If we believe it is a good idea to teach our children to brush our teeth, isn’t it just possible we can teach them responsible sexual activity? Of course it is.

Why then don’t we do it? I believe I know but let me first give others a crack at answering

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 3:51 PM
Comment #317296

John, that is one of the most idiotic comments I have read here in a long time. To paraphrase your comment…Once we get beyond morality we will become moral.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 3:54 PM
Comment #317297

no …once we get past the false belief that this is a moral issue and realize that the contention is due to biological imperatives, then we can have an honest debate.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 3:58 PM
Comment #317299

biological imperative = the need to procreate, continue the species.
thus our distaste and basis for not liking abortions.
honest debate…how to remove the need or want to have to do such a thing as destroy potential lives.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 4:07 PM
Comment #317300

Silly response John…it doesn’t align with your first statement.

John, just read what you wrote with a few extraneous words removed. “…abortion sucks but until we get past the hype that its morality, and realize its biological we will never find a way to remove it from our nature.”

So, I read this as meaning when we eliminate morality we will eliminate abortion. I wonder what other “biological” impulses we have that can be eliminated.

And some folks fault me for saying some of the writers here have a mental disorder.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 4:07 PM
Comment #317301

try looking up this link and reading reproduction and you may begin to understand where i am coming from.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 4:15 PM
Comment #317304

i concede the issue… you will not ever understand my point, morality is irrelevant even with your stance both stances root in logic. it’s the mental gymnastics we humans apply to it that’s ridiculous you cant see past your paradigm and i get that. because of that i realize that my views may be alien to you. i respect your stance and do not wish to belittle it therefore i concede.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 4:21 PM
Comment #317305

John, read and understood and it doesn’t explain why you could possibly believe biological needs can be eliminated or what role morality plays in reproduction.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 4:23 PM
Comment #317306

you see, i think your views are right and justified, i also feel mine are right and justified. i freely accept that there is more than one right answer…i don’t think that you can

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 4:30 PM
Comment #317308

you bring morality into reproduction when you bring religion into reproductive freedom/choice.

i don’t believe that ultimately biological needs can be eliminated, controlled yes,eliminated no. i think that the more we understand them the easier it gets to find balance to the equation,

good / evil / morality are just judgments collectively made for the good of the species, just human constructs created to explain biological imperatives.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 4:38 PM
Comment #317310

Royal Flush,
Although almost impossible to prove the difference between a Carbon Unit and a Human Being is one of the most complicated questions to answer. For though I am still waiting for a Man to prove to a Woman that as a Human they do not have to breath, drink, or eat in order to exist. Even I am not crazy enough to prove the difference beyond words.

Hence, the moral problem! For why both are the same they are also totally different. Otherwise the justification of any violence or acting on that which one cannot prove only gives into the Devils’ Advocate.

John of NAPA,
The first priority of being Human is to know yourself as others know you. For while arrogance, ego, and ignorance will always lead us by blinders. Reproduction for just the sake of reproducing IMHO is a sin against Knowledge, Understanding, and Wisdom.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 16, 2011 4:48 PM
Comment #317311

Posted by: Henry Schlatman
The first priority of being Human is to know yourself as others know you. For while arrogance, ego, and ignorance will always lead us by blinders. Reproduction for just the sake of reproducing IMHO is a sin against Knowledge, Understanding, and Wisdom.

I agree with that entire statement.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011 4:51 PM
Comment #317312

good / evil / morality are just judgments collectively made for the good of the species, just human constructs created to explain biological imperatives.

Posted by: John in napa at January 16, 2011

True for you perhaps John, but not for Christians. Man’s morality is as you write…”just human constructs created to explain (and secure) biological imperatives.”

How’s that working out in the world today?

Your definition goes a long way in explaining why some must deny the existence of God. To place man at the center must, by necessity, eliminate God.

To have a faith and belief in a higher power requires man to be humble. For some, that is impossible.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 5:08 PM
Comment #317314

Henry, I brush and floss my teeth twice a day to avoid costly, time consuming and sometimes painful visits to my dentist. We teach our children to do the same.

Why can’t we teach our children to avoid intercourse before marriage or at least instruct them in the use of, and provide, contraceptive devices?

With over 80% of women respondents to my link on 53 million abortions since Roe V Wade claiming the abortion was performed for convenience, is it not possible to teach them the convenience of contraception. It takes less time to install a condom or take a pill than brush ones teeth.

I would ask the women writers on WB to respond…is it more convenient to use a contraceptive device or have an abortion?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 5:20 PM
Comment #317315

It appears that the Health Care bill as it is being changed by regulation will now cover “end of life counseling”.

Is it too much to ask that we also have “beginning of life counseling”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2011 5:30 PM
Comment #317318

Royal Flush,
Although we have attempted to teach our children to aviod sex before marriage and I would say we have done a better job than our parents at teaching our children why they need to use contraceptive devices (STDs the way they are); however, IMHO allowing our children to teach their children why it is important to understand the difference between sex and making babies (sorry Ladies don’t know how to say that politely) is a step in the right direction.

For why Sarah Palin and other mothers have found that all the talk in the world will not stop two teenagers in love. At least teaching them the signs and providing them the tests will give them a better chance than we had growing up.

And I too am interested in hearing from the Ladies and Gentlemen on this subject. For just because the issue divided our parents, I do believe we can find Common Ground so the issue does not have to divide our children and grandchildren.

As far as Begining of Life and End of Life counseling, I say we have “Life Counseling” since it would be in every persons’ interest to know why Adults, Parents, Society, and Government is so hell bent on teaching us to live healthy.

Personally, I think it is because they don’t want our children to suffer the same pain as Humans have for thousands of years!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 16, 2011 6:59 PM
Comment #317322

RF,

You teach your children to floss…good. How many children are there in this world who are not being taught to floss? If you answer that i think it will answer your own question.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2011 8:07 PM
Comment #317324
I would ask the women writers on WB to respond…is it more convenient to use a contraceptive device or have an abortion?
Is that what it comes down to for most of you guys, or just a personal thing with you Flush? That is just about the dumbest thing you’ve said on here? How many drunk/high teen-aged boys do you think have brain cells functioning right at THAT particular moment? How many crazed rapists do you suppose are going to stop things just long enough for us to take the responsibility upon ourselves, to produce and use safety precautions? That question doesn’t even rate for effort!! And just WHY, are we to be the responsible ones for your lack of a thought process being in effect right then? Posted by: jane doe at January 16, 2011 8:28 PM
Comment #317325

“It appears that the Health Care bill as it is being changed by regulation will now cover “end of life counseling”.”

So it appears Sarah Palin was right after all.

“You teach your children to floss…good. How many children are there in this world who are not being taught to floss?”

Who cares, it’s called parental personal responsibility.

Posted by: Z at January 16, 2011 8:49 PM
Comment #317329

There has always been “end of life” counseling in the package….and Sarah Palin has always lied regarding what it in actuality is!!

Posted by: jane doe at January 16, 2011 9:06 PM
Comment #317330

RF cares…I care…almost everyone with a brain cares. Parental irresponsibility has us arguing over abortion. But abortion is completed for multiple reasons, only some of which are because of parental under sight.

RF, The shear numbers preclude teaching enough, especially during hormone years. I expect your views lead you to abstinence only remedies to the problem, and if you agree to contraceptives, how do you convince your righty compatriots to go along.

Z,

You have the stupidest opinion about the ‘end of life counseling’ program of anybody except Sarah Palin. Please get educated on the subject before blaring out that trash talk.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2011 9:13 PM
Comment #317335

Royal Flush,
Let me try this again since my last one hasn’t posted yet.

First, I like you idea of “Begining of Life counseling;” however, I would take it one step further and add “Life Counseling” since it is apperant especially with Tuson still on the minds of most Americans that people need help in coping with Life’s burdens.

Now, why it is good that you teach your children to bursh their teeth twice daily; nonetheless, are you aware that the experts now tell us that to much brushing will also lead to tooth decay?

And though I would say we have done a good job teahing our children that they need to use contraceptive devices. Stoppimg two teenagers in love from having sex hasn’t worked. So IMHO we need to teach them the difference between having sex and making babies. And though that might seem difficult, with the test kits we have on the market today our job is made easier.

For why we need to stop blaming the female or putting the burden of her demanding her mate use contraceptive devices. I do believe our children should be allowed to teach their children that such kits do exist which will keep them safer since they can reduce the chances of needing an abortion. Because why the issue may have divided our parents 40 years ago, I see no reason it should divide our children or our grandchildrem especially now that we have the ability to teach them the difference.

Jane Doe,
Although I will not speak for Flush or any other Male, I do believe a Man should be held to a higher standard than the Lady when it comes to those moments. For why men usually have no problem telling their wife, daughter, or mother no, I am surprised at how hard of time they have telling a Female no at those oments in time.

So why I will not lower myself to ask what you think about the difference between using acontraceptive device or having an abortion. I do wonder what you and other Ladies of WB think about teaching our children how to use Fetile Kits (something like that) to know when it is safe to have sex and the times when they are likely to make a baby?

Z,
No Sarah Palin is not nor probably ever will be right about End of life counseling. For why not a Death Panel, counseling those who are at the end of their life is actually good. For are you willing to be kept alive by any and all means even if you are to remain lifeless? Do you want to be put through all the pain of medical treatments in your last remaining days to the point you don’t even know your own family?

Yes, allowing you to decide rather than the Healthcare Insurance Companies, the Doctors, and your family may seem like a death panel to Sarah Palin; however, faced with Life as we know it or being kept alive only by machines without the ability to talk to anyone is something I’m almost certain is something Sarah would not want for herself. Yet, without End of life counseling that is exactly what could happen to her or anyone else who decides to allow others to make call for them. Because what is stopping her husband from keeping her alive in a coma just so he can continue to collect on her royalities?

Now as far as “Who cares, it’s called parental personal responsibility” Well, considering I met a Lady with a PHD in Education who could not tell her own son the difference between when to buy a CD and instead told me she would listen to her Financial Advisvor on the subject. I do believe there are things that Parents are not and cannot be responsible for. Nevertheless, as a Community we should do everything within our powers to help the child out.

Marysdude,
Remember we are suppose to help others overcome their ignorance and not leave them drowning in the Creek of Knowledge.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 17, 2011 12:18 AM
Comment #317341

Royal Flush,
Teaching our children that it is good to brush their teeth maybe good; however, I do believe that parents owe it to themselves and their children to keep with the latest information on the sobject.

Thus, why I can say for the most part we have done a good job teaching our children the importance of using contraceptive devices. Given the latest information and newest products on the market I do believe we owe it to our children and grandchildren to teach them how to use them in order that they can avoid the need for abortions.

Now, as far as Begining of Life or End of Life counseling, I do believe we should just make Life Counseling available for those who need such help. Because why we should never fall blind to the idea that parents have all the answers like our parents did 40 years ago, I do believe Tuson may have been avoided if the young man and his parents had access to the type of counselimg need.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 17, 2011 10:42 AM
Comment #317342

Jane Doe,
Although I think RF could have worded his question better, I do believe you were a little harsh in your answer. For why I agree that most men have, are, and will probably always place the burden on the Lady when it comes to that moment. For most it is not out of arrogance, but ignorance which leads to those ackward moments of responsibility.

However, I would like to know your opinion on the idea of using the test kits available on the market today in order to teach our children when they are at higher risk in order to help them avoid the need for abortions?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 17, 2011 10:54 AM
Comment #317343

Z,
No, Sarah Palin is not right! And though that goes for so many things, limiting my comments to her statements on end of life counseling on the healthcare reform act. I wonder if her and you would rather allow others to decide how and what will happen to you provided you don’t die suddenly from an accident?

For how would you want to deal with the idea of living in a coma hooked up to a machine that breaths, feeds, and cleans your blood especially if there was littele hope that you would ever recover to a full productive life? Do you want all the medicine and pain in your last days if it means that you won’t be able to remember the names of your family members?

Yes, why most of us do not want to think of the last days of our lives, having seen time and time again how others would allow their loved ones to be kept alive by any means necessary for all kind of reasons. I do believe having a thoughtful counseltation with your Medical Staff long before those days arrive and making those wishes known to family members is better than waiting for the health insurance companies tell them that they won’t pay the bils.

Now, as far as “Who cares, it’s called parental personal responsibility” Well, what is a community suppose to do when the parents don’t know? For having met a Lady with a Phd in education a few years back who couldn’t tell hear son when it was proper to buy a CD. Imagine my surprise when she offered the idea of listening to her financial advisor instead of taking the time to learn on her own in order to give her son some advice.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 17, 2011 11:23 AM
Comment #317344

jane doe

“There has always been “end of life” counseling in the package….and Sarah Palin has always lied regarding what it in actuality is!!”

Since she lied according to you, you must have the truth. It is your responsibility to share that truth with us.

Posted by: tom humes at January 17, 2011 11:29 AM
Comment #317348

Tom Humes,
Considering Sarah Palin is a public figure and if I am not mistaken a seating governor I do believe it is her responsibility to be honest with us or at least bright enough to make sure what she was saying was not so far off that it scared her followers. Because as the Republican VP Candidate did you really believe her when she said she could see Russia from her house? Or was she blowing smoke somewhere she had no business going.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 17, 2011 12:12 PM
Comment #317352

john in napa:

i believe that is the source of the abortion debate it isnt a moral issue at all. it is a biological imperative to sustain the species hardwired into all life on the planet.

I agree that the objection to abortion isn’t rooted in morality at all, yet I cannot agree that this objection has anything at all to do with the biological imperative.

In my view, the objection to abortion clearly has to do with men trying to control the freedom and autonomy of women. (Indeed I also think that much in the bible was written with this objective in mind as well, but that is a whole other topic.)

In my view it is plainly about men being authoritarians over women lives. Of enforcing obedience and discipline and gender roles as being the core values of families — with men always in the head patriarchal position of authority. Of course, it is not just men who wish to enforce this, there are also many women (mostly conservative women) who are convinced themselves that this is how things must be. That this is somehow the natural order of things.

This is the reason why so many of these people object to sex education in the schools, birth control, a woman’s right to an abortion, and things like acceptance of gay people and gay marriage. All of these things undermine obedience and discipline to heterosexual males as the rulers of society. And thus, to these conservative authoritarians, all of those things are considered an affront to their preferred conception of societal leadership.

For all of these reasons in the view of authoritarian conservatives abortion must be banned. Period. No exceptions.

On the flip side of that mindset are progressive-minded people (such as myself) who are in favor of women having freedom and autonomy over their own lives — including freedom and autonomy over their own bodies. This naturally encompasses sex education, birth control, and access to abortion when women to not wish to be mothers. In fact, to the progressive minded it is considered immoral to force women into living lives of second class status under patriarchal male leadership in any way, shape, or form.

Thus, it is here you will find actual considerations of true morality. Because for progressives, things like empathy and compassion are paramount, and responsibility for oneself and others is viewed as being the core values of not only families, but of healthy societies in general. Progressives understand that what is most important for happy families and healthy societies is promoting respectful, loving, supportive, committed parenting where women and men are fully equal in importance in the life of a child. Such moral considerations automatically include children receiving access to health care, education, food on the table, and a social system that can support the essential well-being of families. That indeed it is these things that define family, not strictly enforced gender roles.

So, to give some examples, the idea of promoting life means things like ending America’s huge infant mortality rate through access pre- and postnatal care. It means caring for individuals and their quality of life from birth and all the way to death. It means affordable universal health care that will improve the quality of life and longer life expectancy for fifty million currently uninsured Americans. It means that science should be allowed to march forward and fulfill the promise of stem cell research — rather than destroying the hopes of millions of suffering people for the sake of a tiny cluster of undifferentiated cells that are otherwise going to be discarded. It means environmental concerns are extremely important — to improve the quality of the air we breathe and the water that we drink. It means improving education and parenting skills so that all people can have a chance to live rewarding and satisfying lives. And it means finding ways to try to end the rampant violence in our society that cuts short too many lives and sends too many people to prison.

In summation, neither morality OR a concern for sustaining the species seem to be of any true consideration to authoritarian conservatives who are anti-abortion. If either were true the term “pro-life” would not begin and end with merely forcing women to give birth.

Just my opinion.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 17, 2011 1:21 PM
Comment #317357

And just WHY, are we to be the responsible ones for your lack of a thought process being in effect right then? Posted by: jane doe at January 16, 2011

I feel the love Jane. It would have been ridiculous to ask men if it was more convenient to have an abortion or use a condom…don’t you think?

One should never engage their keyboard in anger. Most fools are made, not born.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 17, 2011 1:43 PM
Comment #317359

I feel the love Jane. It would have been ridiculous to ask men if it was more convenient to have an abortion or use a condom…don’t you think?

no more ridiculous than the previous question you asked..

Posted by: John in napa at January 17, 2011 2:08 PM
Comment #317360

your silly question is akin to asking …what is easier removing your penis surgically or abstaining from sex…

Posted by: John in napa at January 17, 2011 2:12 PM
Comment #317367

Well John/Jane…I stated why I believed it was ridiculous…can you? Obviously you believe Jane’s statement was ridiculous so that’s a start.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 17, 2011 2:44 PM
Comment #317369

Poor John…can’t read, understand, or make a sensible comparison. Mental disorder or just disagreeable?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 17, 2011 2:48 PM
Comment #317372

he asks what is easier an abortion or using contraception and accuses me of being unable to make a sensible comparison… lol

it is a baited question to further an agenda only a dolt cant see that.

kinda trollish

Posted by: John in napa at January 17, 2011 3:19 PM
Comment #317373

oh i didnt realize it was national attack the messenger not the message day…my bad so sorry. i think you make obviously insane comments at times i never attack you nor your mental state…your skating on thin ice here RF

Posted by: John in napa at January 17, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #317374

Dude wrote:

These ultra-conservative folks are scared to death of abortion. They know that when the female of our species figure out they no longer need the male for any fundamental reason, they will start aborting only male children.

No way. The vast majority of women would never do any such thing. Life would be too boring without men!

Posted by: Adrienne at January 17, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #317376

Bye John, and good mental health.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 17, 2011 4:05 PM
Comment #317379

Adrienne

I found someting to agree with you on. Only for me the other side of the coin.


“Life would be too boring without men!”

Posted by: tom humes at January 17, 2011 4:54 PM
Comment #317394

“Life would be too boring without men!”

Who else would women laugh at if there were no men?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 17, 2011 7:28 PM
Comment #317403

Henry, it takes a big man to admit that you guys are often the source of our amusement!
Thanks for the chuckle…..

Posted by: jane doe at January 17, 2011 9:41 PM
Comment #317410

Jane Doe,
Well… what can I say when so many guys keep falling for the same old lines?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 18, 2011 12:16 AM
Comment #317414

Adrienne,

How many trolls on blog sites are women? For every example of boredom you can site, you can think up an example of aggravation to counterbalance.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 18, 2011 6:25 AM
Comment #317421

Marysdude,
Thanks for proving my point. For why I am not sure what you mean by the word troll however, I do believe both WB men and women give us their facts and opinions on the issues and subjects

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 18, 2011 9:02 AM
Comment #317425

Dude,
From my perspective, the fact that the male of the human species has a unique ability to alleviate female boredom usually more than makes up for a whole lot of aggravation!

Henry,
Here’s the definition of “troll” being used in this context.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 18, 2011 1:15 PM
Comment #317426

God, what a slugfest. I step away for a day or two from the computer, and whack!

I am a Christian. But before that, I was an agnostic, basically a humanist. I know this debate from both sides.

The humanist side, sees the embryo, the fetus at its earlier stages as the beginnings of a person, not a person it in its own right. So, if a woman has an abortion, it’s not murder.

The other side sees an already existing human life. Ending that deliberately, in their minds, is murder.

So, how does one side convince the other side to take their view? Complicating this, the Christian side (or rather Christian Conservative, for their are churches that differ on this matter) relies on an argument that is inherently unproveable. You cannot argue that a human life begins in full at conception, that an undifferentiated lump of cells without brain tissue, much less awareness, is the same as a fully developed human being. You have to rely on a spiritual argument to do that.

And really, if you’re a humanist, are you going to buy that basic argument? And if you don’t, how can your Christian Conservative adversary convince you that abortion is wrong on the level they consider it?

To the Christian, the humanist attitude might seem psychopathic. but that’s unfair to the average humanist, who would probably die to defend a pregnant woman, or a baby. The humanist attitude basically reflects a perspective that humanity from a fertilized egg gradually develops, until that unborn child has reached the point where their life is considered little different.

This is a disagreement of paradigm as well as one of the morality of the given action, and the divide is as much in how they interpret the same event, as in any thing else.

Simply raining moral contempt on your opponent won’t work, because they’re not convinced of your notion of the way the spiritual universe works, and they may never be.

So, how then does a Christian respond? Just continue to dump hostility on those who aren’t Christians? I seem to recall our Lord and Savior giving us different instructions than that.

No, I think if you really are concerned about abortion, a more forgiving path is necessary. The prevention, rather than coming from the legal end, has to come from bringing a common ground argument or other available resources into play. If the children are to be born, we need to support orphanages and adoption. If we are to argue that women should not abort children, we should make arguments that appeal to people across lines of religious belief. You may not be able to get somebody to buy the notion that life begins at conception, but you can get them to buy the notion of responsibility and there being consequences to actions.

If you are trying to get somebody to agree with you, they don’t necessarily have to agree with your belief because they share your reason for believing it.

People will believe things differently from us. We cannot convert them all to our way of thinking, so the question, if we want to see our policies carried out in a Democracy, is how we gain agreement for our way of life, our standards, our ideas, in a country where people are free to tell us to take a hike.

I don’t think many conservatives on this site are properly considering that, but they should, if they don’t want to turn every issue into a futile battle.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 18, 2011 1:15 PM
Comment #317453

Adrienne,
Why do words keep changing? However, I do believe most people who post at WB deal with opinions and only resort to name calling when they don’t have the words to support them.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 18, 2011 7:04 PM
Comment #317612

Henry,

Here is an example of ‘troll’:

>Poor John…can’t read, understand, or make a sensible comparison. Mental disorder or just disagreeable?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 17, 2011 02:48 PM

Posted by: Marysdude at January 20, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #317729

henry

when someone resorts to name calling it reveals more about themselves than anything else.
better to remain silent and have people think you a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

S.D.
Well put pretty much what i was trying to explain better job though

Posted by: John in napa at January 21, 2011 11:05 PM
Post a comment