Jared Loughner identifies himself, through his YouTube video, as an
anti-Federal Government, ‘Original’ Constitutionalist, angry at the U.S. Armed Force’s Christian proselytizing,
and convinced of a government plan to brainwash citizens through
grammar. His posted ramblings are indicative of a deeply unstable
personality, pushed to the limits by anti-government fear-mongering, and
political environment, that has been teetering on the edge of violence
since a black man was elected to the office of President.
Somewhere between his interpretation of the Communist Manifesto
(which I’m sure the Right-Wing media will use to label him as a
Left-Wing assailant, rather than a simply, and thoroughly, disturbed
individual), and Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf – along with an assortment of
other conspiracy theories rolled in – Jared Loughner developed his
‘conscience dreaming,’ anti-government , grammar-as-brainwashing ideas.
An act of deadly violence committed by a seriously wounded psyche such
as this, encouraged by statements from politicians and media
personalities justifying violence, was more than simply a vague
potentiality.
The conservatives who are out in force defending their own are not looking at this with wide open eyes and minds. The Fox people have been ramping up the antigovernment hate JUST since the election of Barack Obama. That IS FACT. No other network TV show would allow it's hosts to get away with this kind of talk. How many more have to die before the Becks and Palins, Angles and Limbaughs, admit the violence comes from the mentally deranged who blindly follow their every word and command. DO NOT RETREAT...RELOAD. The first commandment in todays political arena....it's coming from rightwingers...
Doug Burgum Crashes And Burns As He Tries To Defend Trump On CNN
-
[image: Doug Burgum interviewed by Jake Tapper on CNN.]
[image: Doug Burgum interviewed by Jake Tapper on CNN.]
Trump VP hopeful Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) f...
19 minutes ago
110 comments:
No one can be blamed for his actions, except himself. Quit blaming others. I know that is a new concept for you, but see if you can understand it.
You wingnuts who are in denial need to read this.
True, only Loughner is responsible for Loughner's actions. That doesn't change the fact that Palin and other right-wing agitators have for years been spewing rhetoric which they knew full well could encourage something like this.
And don't try to tell me they didn't know that. Nobody's that naïve.
It use to be that mentally unstable people were treated. There were places that took them, treated them, and held them until they were better before releasing them back into the general public. There were many federal and state mental health programs and facilities. Then along came Ronald Reagan.
It started with Reagan. He decimated the American mental health system. He put the crazies back on the street, and they have bred more crazies. We are now getting the payoff.
They vote and they kill. Thanks Ron!
Yes, Palin is an idiot for the cross-hairs thing. Yes, Beck is an idiot for the plethora of conspiracies that he's been touting. Yes, O'Reilly was an idiot for constantly referring to Dr. Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer". But, please, folks, to suggest that this is strictly a one one thing is ridiculous. Obama himself said that "if they bring a knife, you bring a gun. (a rabid supporter of his killed 3 folks because she couldn't get tenure - was THAT President Obama's fault?)" Roland Martin said that the President needed to "go gangsta". If you're asking me, they ALL need to tone it down.
Amen Will Hart.
And it was the liberals and the ACLU that gave many people in mental hospitals their "rights" and let many of them back on the street.
I have a friend who works as a Congressman's aide, and she said that the death threats come weekly from both sides of the party line, so don't count your party as being innocent.
WH: Yes, Palin is an idiot for the cross-hairs thing. Yes, Beck is an idiot for.....Yes, O'Reilly was an idiot for.....
No, they are not idiots. That's my point. They know exactly what they're doing and what it can potentially incite. They are not idiots, they are malignant.
CS: and she said that the death threats come weekly from both sides of the party line,
The issue here is a years-long pattern of grossly inflammatory public rhetoric calculated to incite violence and murder. Only on the right is such a pattern to be found.
This obsessive trolling and its defensiveness and constant efforts to change the subject, shows that you guys know there is a real issue here and that yesterday's murders brought it to a head.
"Only on the right is such a pattern to be found." - Your opinion. I see plenty of it on the left.
"The issue here is a years-long pattern of grossly inflammatory public rhetoric calculated to incite violence and murder." Again, your opinion. It comes from the left, more so than the right. There is no proof yet that this is even what caused this. In his youtube videos and his Myspace page (before it was pulled), he was more upset over grammar. Maybe you should be blaming the grammar police.
the grammar thing/indoctrinating our kids/ a rightie thing also....
Conservatives are far too defensive. Grow up people, embrace your crazies. Hell, we admit to our crazies doing things IN THE PAST, now its your turn to own it. What evil lurks before us, these past 2 years has been full of Obama hate/government hate/accusations like we haven't seen in decades. It's coming from the rightwing extremists. Own it...
Conservatives have for centuries blamed liberals for all the evil in the world. They are the ones who gave "liberals" a bad name, damning us, accusing us, so stop the pity party.
No pity party here. No justifying or excusing what he did. Even IF is a right-wing extremist, he is not part of the conservatives and their way of thinking. He and he alone is repsonsible for his actions. Just as you and I are responsible for our actions.
"Conservatives have for centuries blamed liberals for all the evil in the world." Except when liberals are blaming conservatives. BOTH sides are guilty of blaming and hating. Thank you internet and the media.
Also this from Fox(ugh!) News, via Andrew Sullivan's blog:
an internal memo - published by Fox - that says the following:
"[S]trong suspicion is being directed at AmRen / American Renaissance. Suspect is possibly linked to this group. (through videos posted on his myspace and YouTube account.). The group’s ideology is anti government, anti immigration, anti ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti Semitic. Gabrielle Gifford is the first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the US government. She was also opposite this group’s ideology when it came to immigration debate."
I forgot to add this correction to Fox's error (what else is new?)
Giffords is not the FIRST Jewish woman to hold that position in the US government. She is the FIRST JEWISH US REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARIZONA.
Apparently FAUX NOOZ is trying to keep a perfect score of broadcasting wrong information.
FAUX NOOZ: If you're watching it, you're uninformed.
The Conservative Toxic Garbage moths have to spin away their evil calls to violence and revolution. The problem is they have been fomenting violence for so long we have multiple instances of people taking them up on their actions.
While, it is hardly* ever true that these domestic terrorist instances have a direct chain of events, such as:
1) Conservative Terrorist listens to Sarah Palin
2) Conservative Terrorist attempts to kill Palin enemy
Words and speeches have consequences and one does not lightly invoke revolution without understanding someone may internalize such bloody rhetoric and act in an unusual way.
*- There have been instances of direct casual actions, specifically Glenn Beck styling himself a Progressive Hunter and preaching violence against the Tides Foundation and the Pittsburgh terrorist who assassinated 3 police officers because he believed Faux News when it repeatedly asserted President Obama is coming for your guns.
CS: "Trying to blame the horrific actions of Jared Lee Loughner on political rhetoric from either side of the aisle, is opportunistic pandering."
common sense, GeG, just gave you evidence that refutes that statement.
And here's a list of more violence and murder influenced by right wing rhetoric over the past two years.
Can you or Lisa or Linda come up with a list, backed up by evidence, of left-wingers who have been influenced by Olbermann, Shultz, or Maddow and have gone gunning for conservatives or conservative politicians?
We are all waiting to see it. I admit I couldn't find one after googling.
Shaw K, evidence doesn't convince conservatives, they have their beliefs and no amount of evidence will dissuade them from their evil preconceived notions.
You can not shame the shameless, you can not reason with the unreasonable, Conservatism is Terrorism.
If you have an element of fear in any society you will always have some opportunist or opportunists use it to exert influence. It's the old story of always needing a new witch or witches to burn.
But doesn't it seem odd that gun sales have sky rocketed since the beginning of Barack Obama presidency, as if Armageddon was around the corner? Or Glenn Beck's need to "take back America" (from what? From who?)?
The bottomline is there are certain people- primarily on The Right- have make a nice living scaring the beejezzus out of people.
Jared Lee Loughner is a deranged nut case, and only time will tell how he got that way.
But isn't it telling when Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County (AZ) is briefing the press after the shooting and calls for the toning down of the toxic political rhetoric, and he is then rebutted by John Kyl, the Republican senator from Arizona who called his remarks "inappropriate"?
So calling for "sanity" over "fear" in inappropriate?
I guess that's bad for business.
"A first-of-his-kind president is suspected by some of conspiring with anti-Christians. He is treated inhospitably in classrooms and associated with communism on posters. He is accused of awarding government jobs to radicals."
Sound familiar?
Those statements were not written about President Obama. They were written about assassinated US president, John F. Kennedy.
You can go here to read the rest of this very well written piece by Michael Smerconish.
I think Sheriff Dupnik made perfect sense, something Sen. Kyl is lacking.
How's this for hate? Ain't never seen anything like it from the Left. NEVER.
The Westboro Baptist Church has this on their web site:
THANK GOD FOR THE SHOOTER - 6 DEAD!
WBC WILL PICKET THEIR FUNERALS.
Just your all-American right-wing Christian speaking. Is this what you mean by toning down the rhetoric?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/westboro-baptist-church-arizona_n_806319.html
I agree with Octopus's remarks on the previous post. You have an infestation of trolls who are grossly dishonest and contribute nothing valid to the discussion.
In the previous post, for example, Octopus listed a number of specific violent and threatening behaviors which right-wingers have engaged in at public events, and which liberals do not engage in. Anonymous said he was wrong. I challenged Anonymous, or anyone, to produce examples of liberals engaging in those specific behaviors. No one responded.
There have been repeated examples given of dangerously inflammatory rhetoric from the right. Trolls have repeatedly asserted that there is similar rhetoric from the left. When challenged to produce specific examples, they change the subject. In fact, every time someone corners them, they change the subject. Anything to avoid being pinned down on specifics about the matter at hand.
This is not dialog. This is heckling. They are not trying to debate anything or to defend a position in any credible way. They are simply trying to disrupt the conversation and waste everyone's energy.
In over four and a half years of blogging I've always used comment moderation. It stops this kind of thing cold before it gets started.
It's not for me to tell you how to run your blog, but in my opinion, at the moment, it's the trolls who are running it.
to my friends, PLEASE do not respond to the trolls, I will be deleting when I see them and until I do please refrain so I don't have to use moderation. I hate moderation because it stops the flow of conversation. I don't sit at the computer for endless hours either so that makes it hard for me.
Thanks!
Conservatives ALWAYS say they don't condone violence. Well, of course they say that. No one in their right mind is going to come out and say the guy did the right thing.
But words have consequences. And conservative keep using inflammatory rhetoric to stir up their base. And stir it up they do. And occasionally a piece of shit like this guy rises to the top and kills someone. Just like the get away driver is equally responsible when his fellow bank robbers kill someone in an attempted bank robbery, conservative are equally responsible when someone gets killed because of their inflammatory rhetoric.
Why do you think Palin took down her target list, her congresspersons in the crosshairs, as soon as this happened? She is one of the "get away drivers"; she, Beck, Limbaugh, and the whole rest of those fucking assholes!
Sue,
I follow your comments with Google Reader so I get most of the trolls even when you delete them. I do my best to ignore them, but sometimes they are just so full of shit I can't help myself. I will try to have more self-control in the future.
Peace!
"We should burn them down. We should go after them with pitchforks, knives, guns, clubs we find, mace - anything, because it's appalling." David Plotz, Slate.com
"Obama needs to break some knee-caps. He needs to use some of the goons from the SEIU to pressure recalcitrant blue-dog Democrats. You'd be surprised how persuasive brass-knuckles can be when used against Senators and Congressmen who stand in the way of progress and economic justice." Mitch Deerfield, also form Slate.
"It's time for Obama to go gangsta' on the GOP. It's time for him to channel his inner Al Capone. Let 'em know that if they aren't with you, then they're against you, and that they'll pay a price." Roland Martin CNN.com
David Bourgeois from the Huffington Post wrote an article entitled, "Obama Better Start Breaking Knee-Caps".
A brick was thrown through a window at the Republican headquarters in Marion, Ohio. A note on it said, "Stop the right-wing".......Police had to pepper-spray an unruly left-wing group of protesters at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh.......Tea party activists have been beaten in Tampa, St. Louis, and Greensboro.......A Minuteman protester was run over by an irate truck driver TWICE in Lake Forest CA........A Bobby Jindal aid was attacked after a fund-raiser at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.......Race riots (spurned on by pro illegal alien protesters) broke out in Santa Cruz, NM; smashing windows and attacking whites.......
Look, folks, I'm not saying that the left is as bad as the right. I personally have NO IDEA who's "worse" here. Common sense tells me that violence/violent rhetoric (like pretty much like any other human trait) would be equally distributed throughout the population. BUT, I'm sure that I could be wrong about this. Good guys and bad guys, right?
Will,
You've gone and dug up rhetoric by left wingers and posted it here to make a point. Is it your point that the left is as guilty of this violent imagery and speech as the right?
If you were to stand on any American street corner and name the people you've quoted, would anyone recognize them? I'm pretty conversant with liberal writers, and I've never heard of any of them. None of those people you quoted has the millions and millions of followers that Palin, Beck and Limbaugh have. Nor do they have the platform to broadcast their rhetoric as do P, B & L.
You're trying to force an equivalency where none exists--and I'm pretty sure you understand that.
What an obscure writer for an e-Zine writes is not comparable to the audience Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh reach.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse on this issue. And this is a damn serious issue.
The Congresswoman lying in a hospital in Tucson with a bullet hole in her head will tell you so. She's the one who said in her very own words that she was concerned about the crosshair graphic put on her name by Sarah Palin.
And her concern was justified.
Don't forget Shaw, a conservative judge was actually murdered in this tragedy. I would seriously hope that the left would at least acknowledge that as more than collateral damage.
A lot of people listen to CNN (Roland Martin), Shaw. And a lot of people read Slate.com and the Huffington Post. These are not what I would call obscure examples. And what about Mr. Obama (I think that everybody's heard of him)? He said that "if they bring a knife, we bring a gun." Is not THAT also some violent imagery?
Will,
Maybe you should consider taking prisoners. The massacre of prisoners is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Please stop putting lipstick on a squeal, or we will forced to charge you with war crimes.
You have a good sense of humor, oh multi-appendaged one.
The fact remains that violent rhetoric spawns violent actions whichever side spews it.
I agree with Shaw - the mouthpieces on the right have a much bigger and louder platform than any e-zine on the left. Hell, they have their own news station for dog's sake.
The Tea Party is responsible and they know it. This is should be called The Tea Party Massacre of Arizona
Will, I did say liberals have their extremists and have had their incidents which we don't run from, so your points are not necessary to the conversation. I have yet to hear a conservative admit the violent rhetorical talk about government, liberals in Congress and the presidents policies has alot to do with this shooting. Does it even have to be about whether or not that shooter was a rightie or a leftie? I don't think so. The point should be was he influenced by people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and if he was then own it. Palin has disappeared along with her crosshairs map, that should tell you something.
WILL: "Don't forget Shaw, a conservative judge was actually murdered in this tragedy. I would seriously hope that the left would at least acknowledge that as more than collateral damage."
Of course I know that Judge Roll was killed, as was a 9 year old girl, and one of Giffords' young (30 years old) aides. And people in their 70s.
I don't understand what your statement has to do with your attempt to equate what some obscure writers on the left wrote with people like Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh.
Again, I repeat: There is no equivalency with regard to the numbers of people they reach every day. Millions and millions of Americans are listening to or watching the vitriol these 3, for example, make a living by day after day after day.
i think- just to bottomline it- when a society starts to accept the dehumanizing of those who don't agree with us, and refers to them as enemies.....then we have a problem. We've seen behavior at town halls and other events from adults that we would call unacceptable from children, but we regard as "that's politics". And maybe that just shouldn't be.
And if a climate like that is accepted as a "norm", who knows how crazy rhetoric and actions translate to the less than mentally stable people out there?
Words don't kill people, people kill people....but irresponsible words from those who should know better can be an accessory to the crime.
The frightening thing is that this is very likely a portent of things to come. If McVeigh was the original, his successors seem to be lining up at an accelerated pace. It was just last summer that Byron Williams got in a firefight with CHP on his way to the Tides Foundation to fulfill Beck's unholy calling.
Let's work together people. Don't just dig in and blindly support your side and their defensive arguments. We will reach back to you. If we don't, we could become like Israel or Pakistan. Don't kid yourselves. Politicians are running scared.
Still, I doubt the republicans are very worried.
This has been the BEST debate class that I've ever got to witness. Sue, you have great readers that really know their stuff and the truth is so obvious, especially when the trolls come out to play.
Keep going Sue. You make people think. And now I think I need another pot of coffee!
People in this country need more sales resistance, about everything.
Yes, the preachers of hate have been alound for a long time, but with people so willing to believe anything without finding out for themselves, it's no surprise that many believe that which is bullshit.
Vanity, selfishness, the yearning to be something one is not, leads many to be delusional about truth.
If you fall for the spray on hair product, is it a big leap to fall for the Republicans "No New Tax" policy that has bankrupt this country?
Since when do Americans believe in a free lunch? How have a majority of Americans voted for the policies, that say it's ok to not pay for the government we chose (elected)?
You want to kill off Social Security, and other helpfull government programs; then run on that ideology BEFORE you promise to cut taxes and bankrupt the country, while those programs are still on the books.
Many people fall for the diatribes of others. From religion to politics, there is little truth in the "salesman" selling whatever he is selling. Why do Americans have to buy?
People are responsible for their own actions, but to deny that motivations for personal actions come from outside sources, is to deny human character and behavior.
To neglect our responsibility to loudly speak out against the falsehoods preached in every corner of our society, is to ceede our power as a people to direct our citizens to responsible behavior.
Is common sense now, what political authorities tell us it is?
We make laws for the whole society because some idiot hurt themselves.
This guy is a nut job.
I wonder how many nut jobs were motivated by the false claims of others?
Have we not heard the word.
In America, if you disagree, bring your gun to meeting, because of course, you have that right.
Did any of the gun carrying freaks stop to ask themselves if that was good manners, or common sense just because they had the right? Did they not think the act of bringing a gun to a public meeting would have no consequences? Whay did those meetings get violent? Because people disagreed, or because someone was shoving a gun in their attempt to voice their opinions?
Loughner's friend has said that Loughner was obsessed with Giffords ever since 2007 when she didn't answer the question he asked her sufficiently.
He's been described as being left in his thinking and being mentally unbalanced BY THOSE THAT KNOW HIM, ie not the media.
Violent rhetoric spawns violent actions whichever side spews it is true. The fact stands that the left is not helping anything by immediately blaming the right.
"Millions and millions of Americans are listening to or watching the vitriol these 3, for example, make a living by day after day after day." - Shaw, If you're going to include them, you need to include Olbermann, MSNBC, HUFFPO, and all those on the left. Either both sides are allowed, or none are allowed.
you're missing the point common sense duh, as so many conservatives are.It doesn't matter if the shooter is a lefty, it doesn't matter why he was mad, what matters is he got validation from Palin and her kind for hating a certain congresswoman because of her stance on an issue and he felt it was perfectly fine to carry out a murderous rampage. Words that you or I could decifer as rhetoric can have a whole different meaning to people with mental disorders, words like reload, take out,
BTW, you don't hear MSNBC hosts calling for a government takeover, or for taking out GOP congressmen and woman, you don't hear Keith calling the GOP Senators names like Hitler or socialists hell bent on destroying America.
When righties claim to bash Obama JUST for his agenda, not him personally, they are still lying about this administrations agenda and policies. Bold faced lies. And the righties lap up every one of them.
Sorry, Common sense. There is NO equivalency. None.
I have promised myself that I would counter that fallacy each time I meet it here on the internet.
Name me a Democratic candidate for who encouraged his/her supporters to come to a shoot-out with semi-automatic rifles as a political rally. Giffords opponent did that.
Name the lefties who went to tea party rallies with guns strapped to their legs.
Name the lefty pundit who put gunsights on political opponents then when called out on that atrocious graphic by the person who was targeted--the person who ultimately took a bullet to her head--said "Don't retreat, reload."
WE are talking about what has been happening since the tea party's inception, where the signs (they're posted at my blog) absolutely carried elimination slogans and intimidating graphics of guns.
What the right is doing now is pushing back against what Americans are figuring out for themselves, finally.
No one is saying Palin or other right-wing extremists have a direct responsibility.
What is a truth that you and others do not want to face is that the heated violent rhetoric and the demonization of a political opponent with threats of mayhem actually produces an environment that accepts the destruction of human lives.
Rachel Maddow, a political pundit on MSNBC, did not put a target on any politician.
Sarah Palin, a political pundit on FAUX NOOZ did.
Maddow didn't "do it too."
And the righties lie about him personally all the time too. You constantly hear phrases like "he is...", not "his policies are...".
"And what about this comment?: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said June 14, 2008. Is that not a cause for concern?"
No. He is not talking about a specific person or targeting a specific person. And that sort of speech is not common for him. He does not, as a rule, use gun images in his lexicon. In any case, I don't like the metaphor at all.
To compare and contrast, Sarah Palin's websites are full of gun metaphors and rhetoric and images and on specific political candidates.
Actually, Glenn Beck once speculated on his first cable show on CNN that he would like to kill Michael Moore, but he did not know how he'd do it. Beck also fantasized on his FAUX NOOZ show about putting poison in Nancy Pelosi's wine.
Okay. One can dismiss the Moore death wish, but the fact is that when Beck said that about Pelosi, he was talking about a person who was second in line to the presidency, not some film maker.
Why does political rhetoric descend into talk of murder? And why do Beck's followers and bosses at FAUX tolerate it?
I think we've become desensitized to this sort of outrage, until some mental case acts out on those second amendment solutions.
And your rhetoric--saying Olbermann is "for turning this country into a Socialist state" is nonsense, accomplishes nothing, and keeps the inflammatory meme going.
Can we try to stop it right here and right now?
Lisa,
That's pathetic.
There. Is. No. Equivalency.
Palin put a gunsight on Gifford and Gifford is lying in a hospital with a hole in her head. Gifford was appalled at what Palin did on her site and said so.
Angle called for "second amendment solutions."
"If Brown doesn't stop it, a browning will." --sign seen at a tea party protest against health care reform.
"Don't retreat; reload." Palin defiantly spoke those words after Giffords' remarks about the gunsight on her.
The more you and others go digging for equivalency, the more you prove there is none.
My vote for best "Tweet":
"If your first instinct after hearing about this tragedy is to scrub your websites, you have a problem as a political movement"
Indeed!
do my friends here agree to end the conversation with common sense and lisa?? They are repeating themselves which makes us repeat ourselves and its giving me anxiety....
if you say yes I will begin the deleting...
common sense is OK, but Lisa is just being Lisa -- irrelevant as always.
I agree with Jerry. common sense is "trying" to make sense, but has a convenient memory and agenda, just like Linda.
The howler monkey, on the other hand is still plagiarizing glenn beck's material and nonsense.
I don't trust CS, I think he's Mal.....
You deleted me? I'm hurt.
I just need to add one more thing and then I'll leave you to yourselves.
What is your response to the Daily Kos's post (which has now been conveniently deleted) which said: "My CongressWOMAN (Giffords) voted against Nancy Pelosi and is now dead to me". Saying she's a "sellout" and a "conservative in hiding".
I stand by one of my earliest comments that it's highly irresponsible of ANYONE in the media to immediately start blaming people, without the facts.
"I stand by one of my earliest comments that it's highly irresponsible of ANYONE in the media to immediately start blaming people, without the facts"
common sense - Does that include g gordon liddy? That coward and criminal you so proudly quoted on your blog?
Sue, if you choose to delete "Common Sense" (who I'm not entirely sure is even a Republican - I haven't, for instance, heard him defend Hannity, Palin, Beck, etc.), who's next - me? Come on, my friend, you're a hell of a lot better than this.
Will - I hate to say this, but I will laugh myself silly if Sue deletes that last comment you made just for shits, kicks and giggles.
I think you're safe.
Look, folks, there aren't a lot of people out there who hold Mr.s Beck and Hannity (Paliin also) in a lower estemm than I do. BUT as of now, we have absolutely ZERO evidence that this lunatic was in any way influenced by their rhetoric. Just, folks, like we have ZERO evidence that that lady teacher in Alabama (I think that it was Alabama) who killed three people because they denied her tenure was influenced by Obama's comment about "bringing a gun to the fight" (this, despite the fact that she was evidently obsessed with Mr. Obama, hung on literally every one of his syllables, etc.).......Now, having said that, Mr. Palin absolutely does need to knock it off with this cross-hairs bullshit. That, THAT, I think that we can all agree upon.
Will, I did it because he is repeating himself, the argument feels like its reached its end. I feel like I'm repeating myself too...
I have had many visits from CS and he definitely is a conservative. That is not my reason for deleting BTW...
Just for the record, Sue, Mr. Olbermann HAS, on numerous occasions, referred to President Bush 2 as a fascist, and has also said such despicable things as, "Mr. Bush, SHUT THE HELL UP!!".......And, Shaw, are you still maintaining that CNN, Slate.com, and the Huffington Post are "obscure" sources? You're totally sticking with that one, huh?
Sue, Shaw, did you know that, back in 2008, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos had a bulls-eye aimed at Congresswoman Giffords' district - a BULLS EYE? It seems, folks, that Mr. Moulitsas has a strong animosity against blue-dog Democrats and would like nothing better than to eliminate them (figuratively, of course). Also, as recently as January 6th, another blogger at the Kos posted this about Congresswoman Giffords, "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi. And now is DEAD to me!" Damn, huh? The son of a bitch almost got his wish.
High Level elected Republicans (who get free media air time) Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun and Right Wing Radio Toxic Garbage Mouths made a conscious choice to use violent language and bloody rhetoric, eliminationist speech and Guns to win political power.
And therein lies the Fault. By propounding their Terrorist Speech conservatives and the Tea Party created the atmosphere which caused this horrific tragedy.
Sarah Palin and The Tea Party are responsible.
Oooooh a fascist! "Shut the hell up"' Oh Will, you sound like an 80 yr old granny! LMAO!!!
I agree Gene. Calling someone a fascist and telling a goon to shut up are hardly comparable.
I still am amazed by those who are hung up on the Palin quip to "Don't retreat, Reload." She, of course, was referring to not giving up and re-grouping to run a stronger race and to try even harder to win. I'm assuming that you people must not be familiar with the term "metaphor."
If you think that Sarah Palin was encouraging people to go load up the shotgun and start blasting those democrats, then, I'm sorry...you are quite frankly, not very bright.
Those of you who think Glenn Beck has encouraged violence in any way have NEVER listened to him...he honestly goes way beyond the call of duty to encourage peaceful disagreement.
This whole frenzy was originally started by the Dupnik (yes, I am using his name as a term of derision because of his misguided poor judgement in spewing his OPINION about the cause of the shooting - in complete absense of any factual support for those opinions) who should be fired for mishandling the police statement. His statements had NO basis in fact at all, but he felt it his "duty" to disparage all conservatives because they dared to disagree with his left-leaning political views.
I'm assuming that Sue and all of those who ran with the lie and didn't get all the facts first, must be feeling a little sheepish right now...now that some interesting FACTS have emerged. The shooter was not a right wing "nutjob" but was just as I indicated in my very first post about this subject - a victim of his own severe mental illness. He alone is responsible for his actions...not every conservative who disagrees with Barack Obama's agenda.
Oh poor delusional Linda..."don't retreat, reload" is of course a metaphor for SANE PEOPLE!!! Of course she did not come right out and tell citizens to shoot those Congressmen, BUT mentally ill people think that's exactly what she meant!! Get real woman!! I have had the displeasure of listening to Beck, in fact tonight, and he sounds like Satan! He is mesmerizing and hypnotizing his followers with his low smooth spooky voice. That explains you Linda....
I admire greatly Sheriff Dupnik, he is a very wise man who knows exactly what is going on in our politics. It would do you good to listen to him instead of Bleck....
I NEVER called the shooter a rightwing nut job, I have said from the beginning it matters NONE what his political views are. UGH....
Well, since i didn't run with whatever it is you think you read into those comments, I ain't sheepish at all.
The rhetoric has GOT TO STOP! What Palin did was irresponsible. Unless she's a total idiot....wait, let me rephrase that...she knows damn well there are people in this world that are crazy and/or stupid enough to be insighted by her comments past or present. It's just plain irresponsible and there's NO denying that. If not, then I'll refer to one of my last comments:
"If your first instinct after hearing about this tragedy is to scrub your websites, you have a problem as a political movement"
As far as the becktard goes, I guess, Linda, you forgot about his off-meds comment about wanting to kill Michael Moore. Joking or not, for someone in his position, it was irresponsible and that quote was just for starters. His bullshit quotes like that are like cockroaches, if there's one, you can bet there's a WHOLE lot more.
I always loved your Animae-inspired avatar, Linda. Most cool. Go Speed Racer, go!
And you're absolutely right. Palin used a metaphor, in the most classical sense. This could be proven or supported with an old, yellowed dictionary. I applaud your command of the language.
Unfortunately, it's a very violent metaphor. Maybe that's just ordinary speech to people that like to shoot guns. Put together with the crosshairs thing, it sort of compounds the message. I don't think we need to use "hunting" metaphors when we talk about political opponents. Not every gun owner is a hunter, for one thing. H.G. Wells is famous for his tale of a man who hunted people on his island.
Many believe, and not without some justification, that the vitriolic and demonizing rhetoric of Beck and others is a blatant attempt to push the unstable to the edge. Witness the popularity of these violent metaphors at Tea Parties. What was Sharron Angle's explanation? I think it was, "I meant if they don't leave office after they lose the elections." or something to that effect. Okey-dokey, my bad.
You're darn right, we don't listen to Glenn Beck. There are people whose job it is to endure that type of torture. I would rather keep my mind free from pollution. I also promised Jesus. But there is a pretty fair-minded discussion of this question over at Media Matters which neatly encapsulates some of his more memorable statements. I think it's clearly a very good idea for someone like that to constantly remind his viewers that he is only advocating a war of ideas. (Metaphor!) Anything less could be harmful to his continued presence in living rooms across the more demented households of the U.S.A. Still, that blabbermouth, Byron Williams, did confess that he never would have started watching FOX News, if it wasn't for Beck.
Nice try though.
Flying Junior,
"I also promised Jesus"
I lost it right there. Joke or no joke, DAMN that was frickin' hilarious. Just thought I'd mention that.
By the way, I'm one of those gun owners that doesn't hunt.
Linda,
These are examples of eliminationist rhetoric, which makes partisan characterizations in stark Apocalyptic terms ... such as ‘evil,’ ‘the enemy,’ ‘dangerous,’ ‘diseased,’ and ‘vermin’ with the connotation that these must be exterminated and eradicated:
Tea Party Leader: Left's Reaction To Shooting 'Sinks To The Level Of Evil'
Conservative Magazine Names Jon Stewart 28th 'Most Dangerous Liberal' In America
Eliminationist rhetoric was employed by the Nazis to seize power, engage in genocide, and massacre tens of millions of people. If you don’t acknowledge and condemn this kind of partisan excess, then you are aiding and abetting the problem.
So, Sue, it's O.K. to call the President of the United States a fascist (you must, because you also called him a goon)? President Obama is still bludgeoning (more so than even Mr. Bush did) innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He's still rendering terror suspects to shithole countries in the Middle-East. He's still allowing warrantless wire-taps of U.S.A. citizens. He's still surging over there in the desert like it's a frigging Beau Geste movie, for Christ. AND I WOULDN'T EVEN THINK TO CALL MR. OBAMA A FASCIST. What Mr. Olbermann said was flat-out inexcusable and I'm surprised that you would make such light of it.
So, no condemnation of that idiot, Markos Militsous? Come on, folks. Not only did that douche-bag put a BULLS EYE on Congresswoman Gifford's district, his vile and despicable site, The Daily Kos, ROUTINELY utilizes violent and sexually inappropriate imagery (a picture that makes it look as if Leibermann is giving Bush a blow-job) to denigrate those with whom they disagree with. What, it's O.K. because they're a "progressive" web-site?
Eliminationist rhetoric, Octopus? The title of this very post is "Evil marches on". President Obama himself referred to the Republicans as "the enemy". It (the vitriol) doesn't seem even remotely one-sided to me.
I'm sure all you bleeding heard liberals loudly condemned the Canadian fantasy film that included the assassination of George Bush, right?
You choose to be obtuse and one-sided in your support of restriction of free speech. Perhaps you should remind those from your side of the isle who claim that "Republicans just want people to die, and die quickly." (Oh, never mind...he was defeated in the last election!)
So let's be clear. All metaphors which use words that "could" or "might" or "possibly could" or "perhaps may be" used by insane people to talk themselves into violent actions must now be off limits, but only by conservatives. Thank you all for clearing that up.
Flying J ~ Media Matters has never been nor will it ever be a "fair minded" source of any information, as was verified by the "hit piece" at the other end of your link. Thanks, but no, thanks!
So far, you are batting zero on this one, but go ahead and cling to your lies as those of us here in the Bible belt cling to our guns (oops, another violent metaphor). Unless you are advocating repeal of the First Amendment (but only for conservative Americans, of course), then we are all going to have to tip toe around our use of the English language so as to not verbally push some poor person on the edge into doing something he doesn't really want to do. Good grief, you are really serious, aren't you!?
So nice, to see the apologists triipping all over themselves to create an equivocation that simply does not exist.
Sorry, Klanbaggers. You drew the crosshairs, and then you drew blood. Now, your leader is even trying to PROFIT from what you've caused.
You will not escape ownership of The Tea Party Massacre, try as you might. We know where the bullseye is.
apparently you don't read my comments because I have said numerous times the left is guilty of saying things we are not proud of. BUT we do not run from these things, we do not make excuses, we do not lie and distort, we admit our guilt and move on to be a better people. Proof of that is far less metaphors of violence, guns, hate, fearmongering etc. comes from the left. We do not put ourselves on a pedestal like you all do. Holier than thou conservatives, Gods party. You can name the incidents of liberal hate, it makes no difference because we already acknowledge it, we admit it, move on you are not making me feel bad.
"Free speech", "First Amendment"
Linda - for you to bring this up at this time makes you an abomination. Free speech? Really? This is NOT about free speech when an event like this cost 6 others(one, a 9 year-old girl) their lives. So what is free about that?
You're NO christian. I'm convinced of that now.
Proof that liberals are just as guilty as right-wing at making comments/signs that are inappropriate:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
You can ALWAYS find good and bad on both sides.
(Sue, you deleted me becuase I repeated myself on something? What about the other people on here that keep repeating themselves? Oh, I forget, they agree with you so they won't be deleted)
I interrupt this "he said/she said" exercise to point out a very simple fact that all those who are on the right side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge:
A former vice presidential candidate allowed a crosshairs gunsight to be placed over a Democratic congressional candidate's district (as well as others) on her SarahGoPac site.
When that candidate, Gabrielle Giffords, responded to that violent graphic she said it was a concern to her and that graphics like that have consequences.
That candidate whose district was in the crosshairs was shot in the head on Saturday.
Everything else being argued in this comment thread is secondary to that awful fact.
Bringing up statements made by candidate Obama or picking through the rhetoric by other Democrats--even dragging into the conversation a movie that was a flop, and practically no one bothered to see is all irrelevant.
There is no equivalency.
The more you people come here and try to twist the facts to deflect the obvious, the weaker your arguments.
To anyone interested, I suggest you go read the link I provided above so you can see for yourself there is no equivalency.
Shaw: As I previously stated, I don't agree with the chart that Palin made. Sue deleted my comment saying that, so I can see why you forgot I agreed with you on that point.
And did you look at the link I provided? I'd say there is a lot of similarity between the hate on the left and the hate on the right and the vitriol that comes forth.
common sense,
There is no equivalency.
Let me explain.
Those images in the link you provided--I've never seen any of them, and I've been reading blogs since 2002, and have been blogging since 2005.
I'm sure anyone could dig up other images of left-wing extremist hate images and hate speech from the internet. What's your point?
What you and the others here are not getting is that a former United States vice presidential candidate engaged in this violent imagery--unprecedented in recent history.
A sitting US congresswoman, Bachmann, engaged in violent rhetoric, telling her constituents that they need to be "armed and dangerous."
And we all know that the titular head of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, has talked about killing liberals.
There is no liberal radio OR teevee talk jockey that has the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people in their audience that Limbaugh has, or Beck has, or O'Reilly has. None.
I don't recall hearing Olbermann or Maddow saying conservatives should be killed. (But neither of them are the equivalent of Limbaugh, since they do not reach the millions and millions of listeners he does.)
Malkin's attempt at equivalency is a FAIL.
Nice to hear from you Silverfiddle. I actually thought the 2006 film "Death of a President" was an attempt to humanize Bush as a defense against those who preached his hatred. It was a sympathetic portrait of Bush. The filmmaker attempted to draw parallels with Kennedy or the attempted assassination of Reagan, two of the most beloved presidents of the modern age. I was a little bit put off by the movie because it came out when Bush hatred was at its peak. Abu Ghraib, Brownie, waterboarding, Bagram... You name it.
But it was a good wake-up call. No matter how terrible a president can be, and Bush pushed it to the limit, it's still not right to pile on that kind of hatred, let alone advocate violence. I rather preferred the idea of a nice, friendly Bush as portrayed in "Harold and Kumar Escape Guantanamo Bay." That Bush was cool.
I am repeating myself too, so don't be offended CS. I really have nothing new to add to this conversation so I will say thanks for all the great comments and carry on if you so desire! :-)))
Let me also add, CS you have been civil in your comments, I only deleted because I felt the argument was repetitive
CDM said ~ "for you to bring this up at this time makes you an abomination. Free speech? Really? This is NOT about free speech when an event like this cost 6 others(one, a 9 year-old girl) their lives. So what is free about that?"
You MISSED MY POINT, CDM. There are those on the left who are advocating restricting speech when it comes to certain groups of people...not for any REAL reason, but because a Dupnik in Arizona used NO FACTS, only his own politically biased opinion to pronounce a motive for the shooting of those innocent people. The shooting had NOTHING to do with free speech. Does it seem logical to restrict free speech because of a shooting that had nothing to do with the spoken word??? Is there some sort of inability to understand logic in liberal genetic code? My original point was that this was a sensless tragedy brought on by the perp's mental illness. The concern for the victims has been regretably overshadowed by all the finger pointing by liberals. I will commend you, CDM, that you were above the fray with your comments.
"The left saying Sarah Palin has blood on her hands? How dare they."--Lisa
To keep this conversation honest:
Rep. Giffords, who had a bullet pierce her brain on Saturday, appeared on teevee in March of 2010and stated that she was very concerned about the crosshair gunsight images that Sarah Palin had put up on her district and that was posted at the SarahGOPac site.
Palin's reaction to Gifford's concern? "Don't retreat, reload."
An apparently mentally disturbed person shot up 14 and killed 6 people on Saturday, and gravely wounded the woman who voiced her concerns about being a gun-targeted candidate.
No one is saying Palin is directly responsible for that heinous act. But people are looking at the atmosphere in which it occurred, and they're drawing their own conclusions.
Steven Budiansky said it more eloquently:
"... Never mind even the childish braggadocio about "second amendment solutions" and "lock and load"; the daily inflammatory rhetoric about "tyranny" and "the end of freedom as we know it" and even the name "tea party" itself, invoking revolutionary resistance to despotism, have accelerated an unprecedented delegitimization of the democratic process itself, a suggestion that those who advance opposing viewpoints are not just political opponents but usurpers."
yes Sue, it's pretty obvious this discussion has run it's course. No one's mind is going to be changed by anything else anyone has to say. Thanks for allowing me to at least partially debate the issue. Peace out.
BTW, Linda, you're wrong again:
LINDA: "...not for any REAL reason, but because a Dupnik in Arizona used NO FACTS, only his own politically biased opinion to pronounce a motive for the shooting of those innocent people."
Here are the facts to back up what Sheriff Dupnik said.
I don't believe any liberals are saying the motive for the shootings was rightwing hate talk.
Linda - I knew exactly what you were talking about and regardless of you trying to lay this at the feet of liberals and liberals alone is diabolical. There is plenty of blame to go around on BOTH sides when it comes to rhetoric and to bring up first amendment talking points is ridiculous as that will never be a factor down the road. Sleep easy, we will never lose it regardless of outcries from any side. I just found it tasteless to be used...and still do. Find another route.
This is just the reason why I waited to make a comment of ANY sort. However, I do find it fascinating to see you, Linda and common sense to be the first to chime in on this issue. It tells me a lot about the person. It says a lot about their conscience and convictions.
I've seen my fair share of Liberal and Progressive bashing, finger pointing and just plain fear mongering from conservative blogs and I just laugh at them. I don't feel the urge to comment on them because it gives them an audience and a reaction they clearly want and I refuse to give it to them. Conservatives seem to not have a firm grip on their unrestrained Id in these types of matters, but then again, there are some liberals as well...but I see it more prevalent in conservatives. Must be a Dick Cheney thing.
A lot can be learned by just letting time go by and letting the bashers get their own blog posts thrown back in their face. Time is the great equalizer for reactionary posters.
Well, lookee lookee, this murderous asshole is a registered Independent. The Tea Party has been tellling us for two years now they aren't Republicans they are Independents.
Of course this murderer fits the profile of a Tea Party member, with his fear of a government, illiterate pleas for the sovereignty of the individual versus the state and his gold backed currency mumblings.
Now clearly, this murderous bastard is responsible for his actions but Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Freedomworks and the organizations under the Tea Party umbrella have created a climate and stoked the fires which, most likely, served as the spark for his terrorist act.
They are responsible for the Tea Party Massacre in Tucson.
Will take no prisoners Hart:
Here's the refutation of what you posted about the Dailykos and the bulls eye comment.
Lisa,
Wrong again. The dailykos did not have Giffords "targeted" on their site. I just gave a link to that.
Each time someone comes here and tries to pin a liberal label on the shooter, it again proves first that that person doesn't know what he/she is talking about, (he was registered as an Independent voter.) And he was all over the map on his reading choices, but was also anti-government,(Tea Party position) and pro gold and silver standard (a Glenn Beck position).
IOW, the kid is a mental case.
But it is curious, why didn't this crazy kid shoot up the pet shop where he was fired from, or the school that kicked him out. Why did he choose Rep. Gifford? A political target?
Really zooeyman? You think placing a crosshair gunsight over a candidate is the same a putting that candidate's name on a list in bold and saying the district is a bulls eye?
There are no gun images in the dailykos graphic--and I don't condone it either.
But it is not in the same category as what Palin did, (Interesting to note that Rep. Giffords didn't mention the dailykos image in her widely broadcast interview where she most certainly expressed her concern over the Palin gunsight images).
I'm guessing the reason Giffords didn't call attention to it is because they are not equivalent.
Shaw, zooey is a NYC troll
At first, I didn't think much about common sense being on here, but after he/she/it posted a quote from that liar, thief and criminal g gordon liddy, only to later post a link to malkin's site(yeah, there's objectivity there...*rolls eyes*) blog, then it clearly shows he/she/it is a troll.
I still find it fascinating how some conservatives just came pouring out of the woodworks after this. If it were me, as a conservative, I say let it go and let ALL the facts come out before launching a counter attack. It clearly shows a lot about their charachter, conscience and self-control.
zooey you have no blog and you sound EXACTLY like lisa/Mal...go away
Uh, zooey....No, you're not letting it go and you can thank common sense for showing a prime example of that. Oh, by the way, what is your reason for being here in the first place?
You're also irresponsilbe with your blanket statement of "all of you". Be more careful when chosing your words.
"Rational people with healthy minds, and a respect for each individual's right to their life, liberty,and happiness understand political rhetoric is just political rhetoric."
Rational people also understand that gun images plastered on candidates' names, brandishing guns at an event where the POTUS is scheduled to appear, inviting your supporters to a shootout rally against your opponent, placing your opponent's initials over a target and inviting people to shoot it, and hearing members of Congress advise their constiuents to be "armed and dangerous,"--rational people understand the underlying message in all those examples:
WE HAVE WAYS OF TAKING CARE OF THOSE WHO DO NOT SHARE OUR IDEOLOGY.
You're being disengenuous to claim what you have, because the victim of violence was worried about Palin's crosshairs images.
And we now know she had reason to be.
Sarah Palin, aka "The Great American Victim".
Soon to be a play in three acts, "The Joan of Arc of Juneau".
(Sigh......)
Enough of this nonsense.
At least rank and file mainstream Republicans have seen the light on one thing....Palin is radioactive. She's peaked, and is spiraling downward, and has become nothing more than a glorified reality star with as much chance of being a successful presidential candidate as I do of running a sub 4 minute mile.
That's all I have to say.
Maybe I'll add something else after we hit 200 comments on this thread.
hey Hugh, I tried to end it all when it hit 60 or 70 comments, but they kept coming as I was deleting lisas! I'm trying hard to post something new :-)
I was thinking something along those lines, Sue. This is like the never ending post.
OH SHIT! I JUST MADE ANOTHER ONE!!!
CDM said ~ "I knew exactly what you were talking about and regardless of you trying to lay this at the feet of liberals and liberals alone is diabolical. There is plenty of blame to go around on BOTH sides when it comes to rhetoric"
I had decided to not talk about this particular subject anymore, but I must answer this charge. I in no way tried to lay anything at the feet of liberals or anyone else. My complaint had to do with Sue and other liberals BLAMING conservative rhetoric for this despicable crime. The AZ sheriff started the whole uproar with his factless opinion hit piece on conservatives, and Sue and many other liberals ran with it. I have never blamed anyone except the shooter for the act, so your charge that I "layed it at the feet of liberals" is in error. The tragedy of the dead and injured regretably has been overshadowed by the unfortunate blame game.
LINDA: "The AZ sheriff started the whole uproar with his factless opinion hit piece on conservatives."
Linda, I directed you to a link that proves your statement above is wrong.
I'm tired of people like you spreading lies and refusing to acknowledge facts.
What Sheriff Dupnik said is backed up by facts.
What you said is not.
The link in my above comment isn't working.
Try this.
Shaw ~ I read the SwashZone link and the information/graphs in the link in no way apply to the particular argument at hand. The Sheriff gave his personal OPINION, presented as FACT. He admitted to Megyn Kelly in her excellent interview with him that what he said had no factual basis, but was his OPINION. Please watch the interview, as it was very well done.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/megyn-kelly-confronts-az-sheriff-over-political-spin-on-shooting/
Dammit, Linda! Not only did you miss the boat, you fell in the water. Must be something in the conservative genetic code, I presume?
Now, I'm getting a headache.
CDM ~ If you are trying to get me to admit that there are jerks on both sides of the isle, then, yes, there ARE jerks on both sides of the isle...Happy now? However, when I am confronted with obviously unfair accusations against those whom I know to be fair-minded, then I will defend them.
Hope your headache is better. :0)
Post a Comment