Shooting Spree in Arizona

[trish]

It’s been at least a day and a half now since Congress-woman Gabrielle Giffords was shot through the brain. She and seventeen other people were targeted by an apparently crazed gunman with a semi-automatic hand gun. She and the others were participating in a political event at a Tuscon box store. I waited to start this thread, because I thought that perhaps one or more of our conservative contributors would want to be first to express their regrets for the occurrence of this tragic event.

There has been a lot of discussion, not only in the media, but at kitchen tables, water coolers, bars and coffee houses about the “cause” of the shooting. The immediate cause is of course clear: the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, arrived with a glock, aimed and squeezed the trigger. But why? Mr. Loughner was not of sound mind. He was expelled from the local community college for repeated disturbances. He was told he’d have to pass a psychiatric examination if he wished to re-enroll. He was a loner and all who met him say he is obviously disturbed. Yet Mr. Loughner didn’t need to pass a psychiatric examination to purchase a firearm. Was the shooting “caused” by Arizona’s famously lax firearms policy? Of course not. Laws don’t “cause” events to happen, they just provide the opportunity for events to happen.

Representative Giffords was “targeted” (shown as a bullseye in the cross-hairs of a rife-scope) by Sarah Palin on a map which, until the shooting, you could find it on Palin’s web-site. Why are Giffords and others in Palin’s cross-hairs? The Palin fan-base needs to know who the enemy is. Did Mr. Loughner see Palin’s map on her website or on the various news channels which periodically broadcast the map? Did Palin’s targeting of Giffords “cause” Loughner to deliberately kill and maim eighteen people in cold blood? Of course not. Palin didn’t pay him or engage him in any way. Palin had never intended (so we’re told) to instigate a political assassination. After all, if a Muslim cleric had exactly such a map with cross-hairs on his website and one of the targeted persons wound up being assassinated by a crazed fundamentalist, we wouldn’t hold the cleric in any way responsible....would we?

How about Sharron Angle suggesting Second Amendment Remedies are not beyond rational consideration? Was Loughner persuaded by Sharron Angle’s rhetoric to pursue a second amendment remedy for whatever political complaints troubled his sick mind? Of course not. Sharron Angle never meant for anyone (so we’re told) to attempt a political assassination.

No, ultimately the blame lies squarely on Mr. Loughner’s shoulders. Still one has the uneasy feeling that the verbal invocations of violence and the easy means Arizona provides to carry out violence conspired create the perfect storm of rage and lead.

[Faldur]

As one of the "resident" conservatives, my heart and prayers goes out for Congress-woman Gifford and her family. I pray for her full recovery, and that of all those who were injured. To say this event was tragic falls so short, the poor little girl that was at the event to learn more about politics, (what a lesson),the Judge and 4 others who won't be coming home again.

Times like these we need to forget about blue and red, and be Americans. Think our President was responsible for that quote. I will not touch anything that politicizes this sad event. It's a tragedy, plain and simple.

[NYBURBS]

There are firebrands on every side of an issue, and semantics are employed by both political parties on a regular basis. There is a lot of anger in this country right now, some of it being more cogent and coherent than others. With that said, I would chalk this up to an unstable/mentally ill individual more so than anything else.

[PomonaCA]

Yeah the guy was nutty, plain and simple. If it wasn't a gun it would have been a knife and if you outlawed knives he would just shank her with a spoon. Stupidity is incredibly creative.

[russtafa]

the guy was from the extreme left

[trish]

If it wasn't a gun it would have been a knife and if you outlawed knives he would just shank her with a spoon.Yeah, he would have "shanked" 18 people before having to switch to the fork.
Stupidity is incredibly creative.


There are firebrands on every side of an issue, and semantics are employed by both political parties on a regular basis.It's true. Political arguments are heated on both sides. Indeed, they're meant to be heated and carried out with passion. When one side lies, there's nothing wrong with calling them liars. When one side succumbs to corruption, there's nothing wrong with turning up the heat and crying foul. I would be the last to suggest we water down our discourse with unneeded political correctness. I propose that it is not the temperature of discourse that is the problem, but rather the discourse itself. Calling for "second amendment remedies," calling on us to "gather our armies," and putting one's political opponents in cross-hairs isn't just turning up the heat, it's threatening violence, condoning violence and calling for violence. That's quite distinct from the normal run of mill anger that permeates political discourse. Take the call for second amendment remedies, mix in very lax gun laws and a dash or two of crazies. It's a potent cocktail. The nation might be able to swallow it without any of the crazies going off. Then again, it might not. There's no cause and effect here. It's a crazy who was given the opportunity, the means and the climate.

[NYBURBS]

Yea Trish, but it seems to be even more vitriolic (to steal the word from the headlines) than normal. There have been time periods in our history where people resorted more readily to the threat of, or actual violence in the course of political disagreement, most notably during Jackson's Presidency and then of course the civil war. There was also the black panther movement in many US cities for instance (certainly not a right wing cause lol).

There is reason for anger now, but unfortunately many people aren't well enough educated to know where to focus it or the history behind some of these debates. That makes for a situation where all this unfocused rage continues to build. I would agree though that the pundits and 24 hour news network cycles have not helped the situation.


the guy was from the extreme left

I don't know how accurate that is. He cited The Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books, but then again he also listed Mein Kampf. Many books like the Communist Manifesto are thought of as philosophical masterpieces for their contribution to the debate on human existence, regardless if one happens to agree with the work's conclusions or not. It seems to me that this young man probably subscribed to a mix of views which aren't well defined by labeling them either right or left wing. Regardless, he was obviously mentally ill and we'd all do well to stop trying to play hot potato with his political subscriptions.

[russtafa]

America seem's to have taken the right to bare arms too far .It was a great concept but was taken to far

[Ben]

America seem's to have taken the right to bare arms too far .It was a great concept but was taken to far

And why does a clip need to carry 30 rounds?
And how does a paranoid schizophrenic manage to purchase a gun?

[Ben]

YouTube - In Wake of Giffords Shooting, Will the Arizona Legislature Continue to Relax Gun Control Laws? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyYAoDnAqE)

YouTube - Ed Schultz: Time to Talk About Gun Control - 01/10/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Taf-M-ObfFw)

[muhmuh]

And how does a paranoid schizophrenic manage to purchase a gun?

why would anyone but a paranoid person even want to purchase a gun?

[trish]

And why are there political parties that encourage their supporters to carry guns into town-hall meetings and to political events? What message are they making if not the message of intimidation by threat of violence?

[Faldur]

And why does our president say, "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun!"?

[trish]

What do you want him to say, "If they bring a knife we'll turn the other cheek"? :)

So I'm glad you agree, Faldur, that the call to violence [is] a major problem and politicians and pundits would do well to retract such language. I don't care who's to blame (though when you start enumerating the infractions one party does seem to stand out). We need responsible debate, carried out in forums where people are not armed, and [we need] stronger gun laws.

[Ben]

Both politicians and media pundits -- whether they be on the left or the right -- need to tone down their rhetoric.

[Ben]

What do you want him to say, "If they bring a knife we'll turn the other cheek"? :)

So I'm glad you agree, Faldur, that the call to violence a major problem and politicians and pundits would do well to retract such language. I don't care who's to blame (though when you start enumerating the infractions one party does seem to stand out). We need responsible debate, carried out in forums where people are not armed, and stronger gun laws.

A civil, cordial and intellectual discourse in American politics seems, well, impossible. Sadly.
It's based on too much entertainment and not enough intellectual profundity.

[Faldur]

What do you want him to say, "If they bring a knife we'll turn the other cheek"? :)

(though when you start enumerating the infractions one party does seem to stand out).

Trish, sorry but I have to disagree with you on that point. How many movies have come out depicting the assassination of sitting Democratic President? How many books have come out titled, "The Assassination of" a sitting Democratic President?

We could go quote for quote here and I am sure we would have enough material for a thousand posts. There is a huge difference between anger and violence. One in my opinion can be healthy, the other for damn good reason is against the law.

Guns? If more people carried guns, when psychopaths draw their weapons their ability to hurt innocent people would be greatly reduced.

[trish]

Faldur says,
We could go quote for quote here and I am sure we would have enough material for a thousand posts. There is a huge difference between anger and violence.Exactly my point. The temperature of political discourse is not the real concern here. As I said, political debate should be heated and passionate. Rather it is the calls (not movies and fiction but actual calls)to violence by actual politicians who go beyond the limits of political dialog and hint at the deeds they would have others perform.


Guns? If more people carried guns, when psychopaths draw their weapons their ability to hurt innocent people would be greatly reduced. You've seen way too many movies Faldur. Can you imagine the chaos that would have ensued if everyone drew semi-automatics capable of firing thirty some odd rounds? This was Tucson Arizona. You can bet your ass there were several dozens of people there with firearms and security (if there was any) was having trouble watching them all. But the shooting still went down. There should be NO firearms allowed at public gatherings other than those carried by security and the secret service.

This event was the predictable result of the call for second amendment solutions, and the near non-existence of meaningful firearm regulation.

Ben says,
A civil, cordial and intellectual discourse in American politics seems, well, impossible. Sadly.
It's based on too much entertainment and not enough intellectual profundity. I too am pessimistic. America will not be capable of civil discourse until white conservative America wins its country (i.e. the presidency) back. On a more optimistic point, Congress is scared. The new conservative congress wants to spend more money. Money on armed guards and personal security squads. What a laugh. If they're scared enough they can pass some real firearm regulation.

[south ov da border]

Nobody's talking about Judge John Mccarthy Roll from Arizona. Our government is causing the same issues they're supposedly trying to "solve". Gun control will do nothing but make crime worse...

[Ben]

Trish, sorry but I have to disagree with you on that point. How many movies have come out depicting the assassination of sitting Democratic President? How many books have come out titled, "The Assassination of" a sitting Democratic President?

We could go quote for quote here and I am sure we would have enough material for a thousand posts. There is a huge difference between anger and violence. One in my opinion can be healthy, the other for damn good reason is against the law.

Guns? If more people carried guns, when psychopaths draw their weapons their ability to hurt innocent people would be greatly reduced.

And every American male should become like a Sylvester Stallone character -- ha! ha! ha!

YouTube - Cobra: your the Disese I'm the Cure,Sylvester Stallone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5fUOxPyt5U)

YouTube - Sylvester Stallone endorses McCain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AANinvSq1TE)

[Faldur]

You've seen way too many movies Faldur. Can you imagine the chaos that would have ensued if everyone drew semi-automatics capable of firing thirty some odd rounds?

Ok, not sure i understand the obsession with a 30 round clip, should we limit them to 15? How about 10? I mean really.. if you wanna carry 30 rounds bring 3 each 10 round clips. Takes nothing to dump a clip and reload. 30 round clips make a weapon bulky and difficult to reload.

Imagine the chaos? No I see no chaos, perfect example: Colorado Spring, December 9, 2007, A madman storms into a Colorado church with enough ammo and weaponry to kill many, many people. Starts firing, when a young lady with a permit to carry a concealed weapon ends his sadistic plot with a clean head shot. Sadly 2 people lost their lives, and 4 others were injured. But thankfully for the young lady that was trained to use a weapon and had the legal right to carry, a tragedy of untold terror was avoided.

When a psychotic madman starts sparing bullets in your general vicinity, you think some stupid law saying "you cannot do that!" is going to save you? Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have them.

[trish]

Ok, not sure i understand the obsession with a 30 round clip...I think the official count is about 20 people that Loughner shot. He made good on 2/3 of the bullets in his clip. People were only able to approach and subdue him when he finally emptied the clip and was forced to change magazines. Let's say he only had 10 bullets initially. Two thirds of 10 (rounding up) is 6 wounded people. That's quite a bit fewer than 20. Suppose he only had one bullet. Then he would only have had a 2/3 probability of hitting anyone at all. You see where this is going don't you? Two-thirds of zero is zero dead people.


When a psychotic madman starts sparing bullets...I think people who sell guns to psychotic madmen should be in jail.


Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have them. Of course. But if you outlaw bringing your guns to public events, then we'll be able to arrest the crazies who bring them to public events. And as a bonus, security will have an easier time keeping an eye on remaining bozos who are carrying.

[Faldur]

Of course. But if you outlaw bringing your guns to public events, then we'll be able to arrest the crazies who bring them to public events. And as a bonus, security will have an easier time keeping an eye on remaining bozos who are carrying.

Ya, just as soon as they are done spraying bullets we can run up and say "your under arrest!".

[trish]

Of course. But if you outlaw bringing your guns to public events, then we'll be able to arrest the crazies who bring them to public events. And as a bonus, security will have an easier time keeping an eye on remaining bozos who are carrying.


Ya, just as soon as they are done spraying bullets we can run up and say "your under arrest!".Why would they do that? With so few targets they can just be taken down with preemptive fire.

Without doubt, reasonable restrictions on who can carry could have prevented the Giffords tragedy. Sure Loughner might have been able to illegally acquire a gun, but the odds against him getting one would have been higher. The odd in favor of Giffords never having been shot at would have been higher.

Without doubt, reasonable restrictions on the clips and the modifications that can be made to a firearm would have spared many people in that Tucson tragedy.

Without doubt, irresponsible politicians and pundits have been calling for second amendment remedies, possible armed revolution and telling people to bring their guns to heated town-meetings and public events.

There were definitely people in that Tucson crowed who were carrying. It's Tucson. I've been there. Everywhere you go there are assholes with guns. Yet, there were no armed heroes in this crowd.

[Mercedes16]

Its a "magazine", not a "clip".

;)




I think people who sell guns to psychotic madmen should be in jail.


Go over the boarder and buy a firearm from a mexican arm's dealer...

[trish]

An individual can do that, but typically it's arms dealers not individuals looking to buy a couple of guns, who cross the boarder; and typically the trade goes from the U.S. into Mexico. There's a lot of attention on laborers who cross from South to North and virtually no attention on the arms going the other direction. Texas and Arizona don't give a shit about those dealing arms to Mexican gangsters across the border. Guns are good! I think arms dealers...including these arms dealers...should be in jail. If that trade were much diminished, it would be harder to find guns across the border...not that anyone in the U.S. these days really needs to cross the border to buy a firearm.

Thanks for clarifying the jargon...I goofed by trying to cover both bases instead of looking it up.

[NYBURBS]

why would anyone but a paranoid person even want to purchase a gun?

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and past efforts at gun control have shown that it generally only kept law abiding people from obtaining weapons. It really should come down to a personal choice on whether to carry one or not, but people that think the police will arrive in time to rescue them are sadly mistaken more often than not.

[Ben]

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and past efforts at gun control have shown that it generally only kept law abiding people from obtaining weapons. It really should come down to a personal choice on whether to carry one or not, but people that think the police will arrive in time to rescue them are sadly mistaken more often than not.

OK. But should a clip contain 30 rounds??? Some have argued: Yes. For defending oneself. But, seriously, 30 rounds????

[Ben]

YouTube - This is how the Public Option begins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE11xiPPMCY)

[NYBURBS]

OK. But should a clip contain 30 rounds??? Some have argued: Yes. For defending oneself. But, seriously, 30 rounds????

So how many is the right number? Have you ever fired a weapon? I'm asking not in an attempt to bash you, but rather because many people that have never fired a weapon seem to make somewhat unfounded assumptions about it. I've handled everything from pistols, to semi-automatic assault rifles, machine guns, and shotguns; so I'm not overly impressed with the destructive potential of a 30 round clip. However, many states do restrict high capacity magazines to law enforcement personnel only, so perhaps Arizona should consider doing the same. At some point though you would effectively render the weapon useless for self-defense purposes.

[NYBURBS]

YouTube - This is how the Public Option begins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE11xiPPMCY)

The commentator in that video is misleading tbh. States have always had the ability to enact mandatory health insurance laws and public options. The wisdom and constitutionality of a federal version is a completely different argument.

[Ben]

The commentator in that video is misleading tbh. States have always had the ability to enact mandatory health insurance laws and public options. The wisdom and constitutionality of a federal version is a completely different argument.

Hence Connecticut:

Sustinet board recommends public health insurance option for Connecticut....

01/07/11
Sustinet board members released their final proposal Friday that calls for sweeping changes to the state's health care system and ultimately establishes a public option open to all Connecticut residents.
The comprehensive plan, which encompasses more than 16 months of work and is outlined in a 200-page report, could potentially save the state more than $226 million to $277 million a year.
Most of the projected savings would come from federal money allocated under the health reform law and altering how health care in the state is delivered to reduce costs.
The plan includes establishing a new state insurance choice for municipalities that would gradually be expanded to private employers, small businesses, nonprofits and households.
The plan was developed by an 11-member SustiNet Health Partnership Board of Directors, which includes Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman and state Comptroller Kevin Lembo.
"This report provides the General Assembly with a roadmap for reform - and propels Connecticut to the forefront in addressing a nationwide health care and financial crisis," Lembo said.
The Sustinet board was established by legislation passed by democratic lawmakers in 2009 in respons to the rising cost of health care. The group was charged with designing and implementing a self-insured plan to control costs and increase access to health care for individuals, small businesses, non-profits, those receiving state-assisted care and other groups.

[muhmuh]

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and past efforts at gun control have shown that it generally only kept law abiding people from obtaining weapons. It really should come down to a personal choice on whether to carry one or not, but people that think the police will arrive in time to rescue them are sadly mistaken more often than not.

thats complete and utter bs and anyone whos ever lived in the free world (ie europe) will be able to tell you that

[Ben]

So how many is the right number? Have you ever fired a weapon? I'm asking not in an attempt to bash you, but rather because many people that have never fired a weapon seem to make somewhat unfounded assumptions about it. I've handled everything from pistols, to semi-automatic assault rifles, machine guns, and shotguns; so I'm not overly impressed with the destructive potential of a 30 round clip. However, many states do restrict high capacity magazines to law enforcement personnel only, so perhaps Arizona should consider doing the same. At some point though you would effectively render the weapon useless for self-defense purposes.

NYBURBS, as you write: "... many states do restrict high capacity magazines to law enforcement personnel only, so perhaps Arizona should consider doing the same."
I agree w/ that. They should place a ban on these types of weapons.
And no... I've never fired a weapon or owned a weapon. I'm fervently against guns.
But for those that want to own guns, well, it's their choice.
I just think we need much tighter gun laws... and restrict, again, these types of weapons.

[NYBURBS]

thats complete and utter bs and anyone whos ever lived in the free world (ie europe) will be able to tell you that

Really? Because as someone that has worked in law enforcement, I can tell you that my experience says otherwise. Oh and a whole range of narcotics are illegal in the US, yet our streets are flooded with those too. Also, comparing European countries to the US is oft times not sound. The US has over twice the land mass of all of western Europe, and effectively enforcing general prohibitions of any kind here is quite difficult.


NYBURBS, as you write: "... many states do restrict high capacity magazines to law enforcement personnel only, so perhaps Arizona should consider doing the same."
I agree w/ that. They should place a ban on these types of weapons.
And no... I've never fired a weapon or owned a weapon. I'm fervently against guns.
But for those that want to own guns, well, it's their choice.
I just think we need much tighter gun laws... and restrict, again, these types of weapons.

Ben, I think you're confusing weapon and magazine capacity. You can limit the capacity of each clip to 10 or 15 rounds without restricting owning any particular pistol.


Hence Connecticut

Yes, hence Ct, but the commentator in the video made the claim that their plan was only possible because of the federal law, which is not true. They always had the opportunity, but simply chose not to actively explore it until now.

[trish]

I have owned and shot guns. My father was an avid sportsman and I've hunted with him all through my adolescence. We hunted rabbit, pheasant, deer and bear. I never needed more than one round to drop by prey. I never used a firearm that held more than six rounds. I can assure you, I don't need thirty to protect myself from harm. I've been in many tight spots and have even defended myself against a lout with a knife and I didn't need a gun. If you want a gun to "protect" your property, that's fine; but don't endanger the rest of us, please keep it on your property.

[NYBURBS]

I have owned and shot guns. My father was an avid sportsman and I've hunted with him all through my adolescence. We hunted rabbit, pheasant, deer and bear. I never needed more than one round to drop by prey. I never used a firearm that held more than six rounds. I can assure you, I don't need thirty to protect myself from harm. I've been in many tight spots and have even defended myself against a lout with a knife and I didn't need a gun. If you want a gun to "protect" your property, that's fine; but don't endanger the rest of us, please keep it on your property.

Trish, gratz on defending yourself against someone with a knife, but the reality is that even cops are trained to shoot someone that is within 21 feet of them with a knife. Also, shooting prey and shooting someone that is trying to kill you are two vastly different things. There's a reason police departments moved away from six shot revolvers and onto semi-auto handguns with 15 round clips. If they want to restrict it to 10 or 15 round clips then have at it, but at some point you can restrict it to the point that it makes the weapon useless for self-defense.

[trish]

There's a reason police departments moved away from six shot revolvers and onto semi-auto handguns with 15 round clips.It's called escalation in the face of lax firearm regulation.

[NYBURBS]

It's called escalation in the face of lax firearm regulation.

So you're going to tell me that NYC had lax gun regulations in the 1990's? Pardon me while I go lol a bit.

[muhmuh]

Really? Because as someone that has worked in law enforcement, I can tell you that my experience says otherwise. Oh and a whole range of narcotics are illegal in the US, yet our streets are flooded with those too. Also, comparing European countries to the US is oft times not sound. The US has over twice the land mass of all of western Europe, and effectively enforcing general prohibitions of any kind here is quite difficult.

no your streets arent flooded with narcotics by any means and im sure you know perfectly well that that is more than a mere exaggeration

the fact of the matter is that countries with tight gun control laws are generally a lot safer to live in and even in our biggest cities i cant think of any parts of town where the worst youre likely to run into late at night is more than a bunch of kids looking to beat someone up

[Faldur]

The secret service doesn't carry 30 round clips, and there is a good reason for it. Its clumsy, makes the weapon un-balanced, is very difficult to conceal and is very difficult to deploy quickly.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/2564680496_fbfda20c78.jpg

Anyone who has spent anytime at a range and studied to be proficient in fire arm use would prefer the standard 10 round clip. I'm slow and i can reload in a little over 2 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxzrahUUTi8

[onmyknees]

It’s been at least a day and a half now since Congress-woman Gabrielle Giffords was shot through the brain. She and seventeen other people were targeted by an apparently crazed gunman with a semi-automatic hand gun. She and the others were participating in a political event at a Tuscon box store. I waited to start this thread, because I thought that perhaps one or more of our conservative contributors would want to be first to express their regrets for the occurrence of this tragic event.

There has been a lot of discussion, not only in the media, but at kitchen tables, water coolers, bars and coffee houses about the “cause” of the shooting. The immediate cause is of course clear: the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, arrived with a glock, aimed and squeezed the trigger. But why? Mr. Loughner was not of sound mind. He was expelled from the local community college for repeated disturbances. He was told he’d have to pass a psychiatric examination if he wished to re-enroll. He was a loner and all who met him say he is obviously disturbed. Yet Mr. Loughner didn’t need to pass a psychiatric examination to purchase a firearm. Was the shooting “caused” by Arizona’s famously lax firearms policy? Of course not. Laws don’t “cause” events to happen, they just provide the opportunity for events to happen.

Representative Giffords was “targeted” (shown as a bullseye in the cross-hairs of a rife-scope) by Sarah Palin on a map which, until the shooting, you could find it on Palin’s web-site. Why are Giffords and others in Palin’s cross-hairs? The Palin fan-base needs to know who the enemy is. Did Mr. Loughner see Palin’s map on her website or on the various news channels which periodically broadcast the map? Did Palin’s targeting of Giffords “cause” Loughner to deliberately kill and maim eighteen people in cold blood? Of course not. Palin didn’t pay him or engage him in any way. Palin had never intended (so we’re told) to instigate a political assassination. After all, if a Muslim cleric had exactly such a map with cross-hairs on his website and one of the targeted persons wound up being assassinated by a crazed fundamentalist, we wouldn’t hold the cleric in any way responsible....would we?

How about Sharron Angle suggesting Second Amendment Remedies are not beyond rational consideration? Was Loughner persuaded by Sharron Angle’s rhetoric to pursue a second amendment remedy for whatever political complaints troubled his sick mind? Of course not. Sharron Angle never meant for anyone (so we’re told) to attempt a political assassination.

No, ultimately the blame lies squarely on Mr. Loughner’s shoulders. Still one has the uneasy feeling that the verbal invocations of violence and the easy means Arizona provides to carry out violence conspired create the perfect storm of rage and lead.

I knew you would go there...What you've done Trish, albeit eloquent in places, and subtle in others is completely out of line in my opinion. By you raising the name Sarah Palin in the very discussion, you attempt to tie the two completely unrelated events together. It's unseemly frankly and it's like throwing chum in the water to hungry sharks. It's exactly what the Congressional Black Caucus did to the Tea Party. It's like playing word association and it's intellectually dishonest. You seek to tie the two ( Palin and Loughner) together and then when the right wing rebels you can say...."well of course there's no cause and effect, I was just sayin'" !! What happened in the days following the tragedy was a national disgrace . When the left isn't engaging in class warfare, they're playing the race card, and now this. Paul Krugman wet himself he was so excited about attempting to make the connection. Then the incompetent sheriff jumped onboard and the rest of the left was off to the races. My god...can we grieve this little child before you blame Pailn? In the coming days, I'm sure this Sheriff will be expose for the incompetent buffoon he is. He is far more responsible for this than Palin....or as an NYU Psychology Professor said on Night Line last night...John Lennon has as about as much culpability to what happen as Palin.

I can fill 40 pages to fill with more incendiary language by the dunces on MSNBC than anything Palin ever said. All this might be a constructive debate in the abstract, but we haven't even had the fucking funerals yet.

[onmyknees]

Seems like eveybody has an opinion on the Arizona tradgey...Here Spike Lee, brilliant filmaker, avid NY Knicks fan, and political moron adds his two cents..."The Most Violent Country in The History of the World" !! Really Spike??


http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hd6UqGSUpr

[trish]

Though it is not causal, the connection is obvious to everyone. That's why Sarah took down her targets. That's why the right, usually the first to politicize every event, immediate cried, "Please don't politicize this." The "this" they're referring to was an botched political assassination that ended in disaster for twenty people. The tragedy was the confluence of he solicitous speech of Palin, Angle and others, the call to brings firearms to town meetings and political gatherings, the virtual non-existence of gun laws in the U.S. and especially in Arizona, and one lunatic web surfer. We all knew something like this was going to happen. It was just a matter of where and when.

[Faldur]

Ya Democrats never use targets for anything like Sarah.
http://www.dlc.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif

An October 23, quote from Rep. Paul Kanjorski - D Pa. "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."

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

New Hampshire Democratic State Representative Timothy Horrigan posted on Facebook his wish Sarah Palin and Levy Johnson would have been onboard the airplane crash that killed former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. Horrigan wrote "a dead Palin would be even more dangerous than a live one...she is all about her myth" and if she was dead, she wouldn't the target of the liberals attempting to embarrass her.

And nobody seemed to want to touch the movie "Death of a President", how would democrats react if there was a movie out there depicting the assassination of Barak Obama? Everyone seemed to turn a blind eye when it was George W. Bush. And how about a book entitled "The Assassination of Barack Obama"? Would that disturb any of you liberals? How about Nicholson Baker's book, "Checkpoint", (but it was Nicholson Baker's Checkpoint, in which one the characters is obsessed with the idea of assassinating sitting president George jr. Bush, that provoked the strongest reactions and greatest outrage). You seem to ignore these items as if Bush deserved death? And you have the audacity to talk about hate speech? Lets address some of the things you completely turned your back to in the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YbzqlVtpXE

[onmyknees]

<B>


This morning on “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield sat down with Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre.
Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Regarding the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, Osler says his friend didn’t even watch the news.

He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.


Good Move Sheriff Boob-Nick. Make false outrageous accusations and enflame passions to suit your political agenda.
</B>

[onmyknees]

Paul Krugman NY Times/ Premier left wing flame thrower was the first to use this tradgey for his own sick, twisted ajenda.

Posted at 6:27 pm by Glenn Reynolds http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/themes/instapundit/images/permalink.gif (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/113043/)


HAVE YOU NO DECENCY, SIR? (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/gordon/386308)

I also agree that this may be a tipping point in Krugman’s disgraceful career as a columnist. For one thing, he is intellectually lazy and seems to operate on the principle that a Krugman assertion is, ipso facto, an established fact. He rarely buttresses his assertions with evidence. His one bit of evidence that ”eliminationist rhetoric” in American political life is overwhelmingly on the right was to quote Rep. Michelle Bachmann as saying that people who oppose the Obama agenda should be “armed and dangerous.”
Far worse, however, he is intellectually dishonest. Even the Times’s first public editor, Daniel Okrent, said that Krugman has a “disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.” He is no less cavalier with quotes. As John Hinderaker at Power Line shows, complete with a recording of the entire interview, Michelle Bachmann was merely using a metaphor. She was holding a town hall meeting with constituents regarding the cap-and-trade bill and said, “I’m going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back.” She was arming them with information, not bullets, so they could successfully oppose a terrible bill, not shoot politicians.
On June 19, 1954, Joseph Welch asked Senator Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” It turned out to be the tipping point in McCarthy’s career, the moment when public opinion turned decisively against him. By the end of the year, he had been censured by the Senate. He died a few years later, the object of public scorn, which he remains for most.
I hope that Krugman’s column on Monday, when he shamelessly used a tragedy to smear his political opponents, will be his have-you-no-decency-sir moment. He deserves one. He is the Joe McCarthy of our times.

[onmyknees]

Though it is not causal, the connection is obvious to everyone. That's why Sarah took down her targets. That's why the right, usually the first to politicize every event, immediate cried, "Please don't politicize this." The "this" they're referring to was an botched political assassination that ended in disaster for twenty people. The tragedy was the confluence of he solicitous speech of Palin, Angle and others, the call to brings firearms to town meetings and political gatherings, the virtual non-existence of gun laws in the U.S. and especially in Arizona, and one lunatic web surfer. We all knew something like this was going to happen. It was just a matter of where and when.


Inaccurate, Colossal Fail, Trish...The Right did not immediately cry "please don't politicize this"

The Facts For Your Information......A mere two hours after the shooting and about the same time the news outlets were sorting out the ever changing facts on the ground, Krugman posted his remarks. Three hours after the incident, Sheriff Dupnick took to the microphones at the first press conference . It was there he began his blame game. Check the time line Trish. The "progressives" shamefully and despicably went down this road, but none of us who pay attention were surprised. We know the tactis, they've been on display for several years now. Nothing new here.

[trish]

COLOSSAL FAIL, you just supported my claim...as the left began to politically analyze this obviously political tragedy (an attempted assassination of a Representative to Congress and a mass killing) the right was crying not to do so (knowing that no road was available to them but to pretend to take the high road).

FACT: More restrictive gun laws would have saved lives.
FACT: Politicians and pundits of both sides (but largely on the right) have been have been calling for armed revolution, secession, Second Amendment remedies and depicting their opponents as targets to be shot.
FACT: Just a few days ago the question asked by the GOP of all candidates for party leader was, "How many guns do you own?"
FACT: Six people were killed and many others wounded by an unbalanced individual who never should have been able to legally acquire a semi-automatic glock 19.

FACT: The Tucson tragedy is a confluence of irresponsible political messaging, lax firearm regulation that put a legal gun in Loughner's hand and ill-luck, as it could've happened anywhere.

[arnie666]

Though it is not causal, the connection is obvious to everyone. That's why Sarah took down her targets. That's why the right, usually the first to politicize every event, immediate cried, "Please don't politicize this." The "this" they're referring to was an botched political assassination that ended in disaster for twenty people. The tragedy was the confluence of he solicitous speech of Palin, Angle and others, the call to brings firearms to town meetings and political gatherings, the virtual non-existence of gun laws in the U.S. and especially in Arizona, and one lunatic web surfer. We all knew something like this was going to happen. It was just a matter of where and when.


If the likes of you want to end up with Palin as your next president,keep going.Palin ,the tea party, rush etc etc had absolutely nothing to do with this. I do think you people were rather quick to rush to this judgement before some time had gone by ,not only in case you got egg on your own faces in the aftermath but also because you wouldn't want to be accused of making political capital from the dead including a dead nine yr old.You should surely know by now that Palin has the annoying habit of becoming stronger from left attacks, and is best off leaving alone for her to put foot in mouth as she sometimes does. Big mistake trish and others.

Just think how this looks too people,and I don't mean politicos, or people with political agendas,I mean the ordinary 'folks'. You drew first blood over this, and the likes of Palin rush etc now are defending themselves. So any attempt they may make now to attack the left,democrats etc etc if some embarassing stuff comes out about this sheriff for instance, will be seen in this guise.

Now this is my feelings on this mess.There was not really a political motive at all. This assassination attempt and the other killings were the result of an obession of a man who was mentally ill . A deranged mind. This man had been obsessed with the congresswoman since 2007,while Palin was still in alaska persecuting homos and hanging niggers.This is not his first encounter with the congresswoman .In fact it is alleged that before this shooting spree he was extremely angry that the congresswoman has supposedly been saracastic to some degree when answering one of his insane questions. He said she was 'dead to him'. His class mates also refering to him as a left wing pot head.That isn't known as a fact as yet, but is interesting.

What is a fact ,is,that he has several convictions concerning pot use. It is proven that unstable people and pot do not go well together. It is also a fact, that several complaints had been made to local police about threats to other people before the shooting. Which were sat on by local law enforcement, for whatever reason. This might be why a democrat sheriff might be trying to pass the buck to other people.

I drew three conclusions from this.

1 I really do think America needs to find away to stop insane people having access to firearms. I disagree with mark levin actually I don't normally believe me. , if he had a knife or a bat,probably far less would have been killed or seriously injured,so mark is wrong about that. Being someone who has dealt with loons like him before. If this means more retrictive gunlaws for the mentally deranged then I think my conservative friends have to face it.

2 This doesn't just go for america but other countries in the west. We seriously do not look after the mentally ill well enough. What I mean is,this man belonged in an institution . Where was his family when he was building a devil worshipping shrine in his back yard,why didn't they know about his you tube page? Why didn't the police get him put into a state mental institution when he was making threats in the past.Or at least put him in front of a judge who could decide on what to do with him?

3 Finally, I for one am sick to death of both sides of the media and politics ,, and they are both now doing what the other side are accusing each other of over this.How the left can now ever complain about the likes of fox news or rush, after this I have no idea.We have democratic pundits openly talking about this being obamas opportunity. They know he is in trouble,they know it is unlikely he wiil get a second term.The man finds leadership difficult,he is put in the shade by clinton,his entire adminstration seems scared of fox news . Now I don't believe this constant baiting, had anything to do with this, but I do believe a strong pleasant america is more likely when both sides behave like gentlemen, It just makes people so apathetic when you have both sides behaving like 5 yr olds.

just too add, I don't think it is very wise for a sheriff, to be giving anything that a future lawyer could use to help in the lunatics defence. The sheriff should be strictly inpartial on this,whatever his personal opinions. This will not have gone unnoticed, by those at a much higher pay grade than him.Believe me.

[marissaaz]

exactly what "more restrictive" would of helped here
he went in filled out his paperwork the proper agency was contacted and they ok'ed the sale
now lets say for the sake of arguement the 10rd mag ban was in effect,the gun would come w/2 10rnd mags instead of 15rnd mags even if banned their would still be plenty of "hi-cap"(over 10rnd mags ava.) just like when the clinton assult ban took place in 1994 they would just cost more so instead of paying 35-50$ for his 30 rnd mags he would pay 50-75ish, all the cry for more restrictive firearms legislation does is make gun dealers more money when the panic buying sets in ......... its one of the things that helped me retire thanks to clinton and his 94 assult ban

there are plenty of laws on the books allready maybe they should enforce those

[trish]

Palin ,the tea party, rush etc etc had absolutely nothing to do with this. So Loughner descended to Earth from the void in complete isolation from the political culture, yet he knew all about glocks and had an interest in one particular politician. That doesn't wash. This dude, even if unstable, was aware of his surroundings. It is proven that unstable people are open to suggested solicitations (even if unintended) of violence. (I think it was the same people who proved unstable people and pot don't mix). Talk of Second Amendment remedies to nuts like Loughner is like catnip to a feline. It's like drinking with your buddies and then all going out to hunt quail. Maybe no one will get shot. But if one of your party shoots another in the face, you can't say you had nothing to do with it.
So on this point we disagree.

On the point of whether now is the politically expedient time to bring up the connection to Palin's imagery, it was Giffords herself who brought is up before the shooting. It was already on the table.

On the point passing legislation making it more difficult for a unstable personality to legally acquire a firearm, we agree.

One out of three ain't bad.

[marissaaz]

the shooter knew of giffords long before palin had anything to do w/this he met her at one of these events in 2007 orig. she even sent him a letter to do w/it

[south ov da border]

people will always try and place blame when something happens. Society is to blame and there are many places to start pointing. Pretty soon the programing will take effect and more events such as this will happen, leading to more rights being taken for our safety. I'm not saying that any one thing set this guy off, but I am saying that the powers that be never let a good tragedy go to waste...

[arnie666]

exactly what "more restrictive" would of helped here
he went in filled out his paperwork the proper agency was contacted and they ok'ed the sale
now lets say for the sake of arguement the 10rd mag ban was in effect,the gun would come w/2 10rnd mags instead of 15rnd mags even if banned their would still be plenty of "hi-cap"(over 10rnd mags ava.) just like when the clinton assult ban took place in 1994 they would just cost more so instead of paying 35-50$ for his 30 rnd mags he would pay 50-75ish, all the cry for more restrictive firearms legislation does is make gun dealers more money when the panic buying sets in ......... its one of the things that helped me retire thanks to clinton and his 94 assult ban

there are plenty of laws on the books allready maybe they should enforce those

Well they should enforce them, that is a law enforcement issue, and if they are not enforcing the present laws in any state someone should kick some ass. Oops will I be placed on a terror watch list for using violent terminology?But Obama has used similar so I should be okay:praying:

But I do think something further is needed, which should be a federal law which all states must enforce or else.If the Police have knowledge of someone making threats on anyone, they should have the power to take their guns away and also if they are living with someone,parents for instance, guns can be removed form their dwelling . Concerning mental illness, perhaps it's time there was a licensing programme, which means when you buy any firearm you have to apply for a licence, which means filling out a form and means the police for instance have a right to have a statement from your GP. and check for any medical history of mental illness.I would also suggest anyone with a conviction for pot use should be banned from owning a firearm for say 5 yrs after conviction. If there is a law already like this, then they ought to be enforcing it.

I don't personally think their should be a restriction on type of firearm,or concealed carry for instance but there ought to be more of a way of vetting those who wish to have a legally held firearm.This is because I disagree with levin that knives and bats are just as dangerous in the hands of a loon as a gun.

Would this be fool proof? no, but I do believe it would have been wise to take this guys guns away long before.

[Faldur]

Welcome to the Wellstone memorial II, only the democrats can take a tragic event and try and turn it into political capitol.

"Never let a good crisis [tragedy] go to waste", Rahm Emmanuel

"And the president right now seems removed. It wasn't until that speech [after the bombing] that [Clinton] really clicked with the American public. Obama needs a similar defining moment," according to Mark Penn.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20110112/capt.ffb533d16d6548058df1085e682a679d-ffb533d16d6548058df1085e682a679d-0.jpg?x=400&y=260&q=85&sig=N.QAYDWiArwIBAgBew2bkw--

Tshirts, they made friggin tshirts to turn a memorial into a political campaign stop. And they wonder why there is discourse in the country.

[trish]

the shooter knew of giffords long before palin had anything to do w/this he met her at one of these events in 2007 orig. ...Does that prove he was already planning to shoot her in 2007? Or does it prove he didn't shoot until until the political climate seemed to sanction it? It can go either way.


people will always try and place blame when something happens.Smart people always try to figure out the causes of things. When that fail they try to figure out what factors conspired to bring about the instability that allowed the event to happen. Once you know the underlying driving forces and how they interact, you may be able to modify how you do things to avert disasters. Conservatives like to talk about people taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The time is now to practice what you preach.


Tshirts, they made friggin tshirts OH MY FUCKING GOD! NOOOOOOooooooooo!!!! T's that say, "TOGETHER WE THRIVE." That's...that's....SOCIALISM!!!!

You don't think a botched assassination attempt on the life of a member of Congress that kills 6 people and injures 13 others is already a political event? Before she was shot, Giffords herself asked Palin to consider the possible consequences of her cross-hairs map.

So how does Palin react to recent events. She thinks she the victim of Blood Libel. Apparently she thinks she's being accused of killing the children of liberal parents, to brew Blood Tea which is drunk by wild revolutionary revelers in some Tea-Party rites. Apparently some people here think that's what she's being accused of. So let's be clear. What is Sarah really being asked to consider? That she has used imagery on her website that seems to some, even before the recent tragedy in Tucson but especially now, to solicit, even if only in humorous metaphor, the assassination of political targets. Imagery that may contribute to rash action when interpreted by unstable minds, and that contributes, even if unintentionally, to the general feeling among some that violent revolution maybe a viable Second Amendment remedy for some of our problems.

[JerseyMike]

If you compare to how media and the President are reacting to the shooting spree in Arizona to the Fort Hood shooting you really see how the media and the president try to take advantage to tragedies that favor their political and ideological views.

Arizona: 6 dead 14 wounded. 33 minute speech by Obama.
Fort Hood: 13 dead 30 wounded. 3 minute blurb by Obama. Later delivered a eulogy at a memorial for the victims that wasn't aired in primetime 15 minutes.

[trish]

Were any of the wounded at Fort Hood Congressmen? I think there's your answer.

[arnie666]

Trish ,perhaps listen to one of your brothers he sees through all the craziness

YouTube - Caller Confronts Sharpton Over Palin Blame Game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CatBSsYG_to&feature=player_embedded)

Can you provide me with a shred of evidence to suggest this guy had even visited Palins website and seen the infamous crosshairs map?

His best friend has been interviewed, and he said,the guy never really bothered with politics on either side at all but if anything was more to the left,but does that mean I think he listened to Obamas 'violent' statements during his campaign?.No the man was simply a loon. He became progressively more ill after breakup with his girlfriend. He was also not just taking pot but also a hallucigennic drug which is illegal in some states. Begins with S.

I believe what will come out later,are the local law enforcement not acting on these other complaints, and also the past communications between him and the congresswoman. He had earlier referred to her as 'stupid ' and 'unintelligent', which seem to be common left wing insults. He also said at some point before the shooting spree that she was dead to him because apparently she had given a nonsensical answer to a nonsensical question from him.

Why do you think it is,that Palins name is constantly mentioned yet ,it is acknowledged in that video that there are members of the left who aren't innocent of what they are claiming palin with doing either? Why haven't they named those they are thinking of?Could it be they would have to accuse the president of the same thing?you saw his earlier comments another poster posted. Come on trish, I will bet you ,you will see this as beating a dead horse increasingly.

This isn't about some general plea to tone the political rhetoric down, is it.. Obama perhaps might think that but many of the left don't. And now Palin is being accused of making this tragedy about her... come on, she is meant to just sit there and take it... who inserted her into this the media? why? ask them.. ,she didn't comment for like 24 hrs before making the blood libel speech. What was it the presidential campaign increasinly was Palin vs Obama, by the end and this has continued? you think Palin did that all herself?.

As I said, the left might end up hanging themselves, as Palin right now seems to have conducted herself very well quite presidential. She even got her blood libel talk in before the president.

[arnie666]

If you compare to how media and the President are reacting to the shooting spree in Arizona to the Fort Hood shooting you really see how the media and the president try to take advantage to tragedies that favor their political and ideological views.

Arizona: 6 dead 14 wounded. 33 minute speech by Obama.
Fort Hood: 13 dead 30 wounded. 3 minute blurb by Obama. Later delivered a eulogy at a memorial for the victims that wasn't aired in primetime 15 minutes.

Also,when the killer was muslim,the mainstream media, was saying we mustn't rush to judgement, some loony shoots up a congresswoman with no clear political affiliations, right away ,... HE GOT HIS ORDERS FROM WASILLIA, PALINS DEATH SQUADS. only now are they backtracking on it.

[trish]

I'm not saying that he has visited Sarah's website. Since her targets have been all over FOX and MSNBC since they've been originally posted, he didn't have to visit her website. I'm not even saying he saw the Palin targets. I'm saying

So how does Palin react to recent events. She thinks she the victim of Blood Libel. Apparently she thinks she's being accused of killing the children of liberal parents, to brew Blood Tea which is drunk by wild revolutionary revelers in some Tea-Party rites. Apparently some people here think that's what she's being accused of. So let's be clear. What is Sarah really being asked to consider? That she has used imagery on her website that seems to some, even before the recent tragedy in Tucson but especially now, to solicit, even if only in humorous metaphor, the assassination of political targets. Imagery that may contribute to rash action when interpreted by unstable minds, and that contributes, even if unintentionally, to the general feeling among some that violent revolution maybe a viable Second Amendment remedy for some of our problems.

The call to brings arms to public meetings, encouraging Tea Partier to play at being armed revolutionaries, the suggestion that Second Amendment remedies may be proper courses to consider in our times, the GOP officially asking its candidates for party leader how many guns they own, etc. These all contribute to the climate that Loughner found himself inhabiting. Loons don't live in a bubble. You claim he's not political and yet he writes to his congressman. He went to political rallies. He attempted a political assassination.

[trish]

The claim is not
HE GOT HIS ORDERS FROM WASILLIA, PALINS DEATH SQUADS The claim is
That she (Palin) has used imagery on her website that seems to some, even before the recent tragedy in Tucson but especially now, to solicit, even if only in humorous metaphor, the assassination of political targets. Imagery that may contribute to rash action when interpreted by unstable minds, and that contributes, even if unintentionally, to the general feeling among some that violent revolution maybe a viable Second Amendment remedy for some of our problems.

[arnie666]

I'm not saying that he has visited Sarah's website. Since her targets have been all over FOX and MSNBC since they've been originally posted, he didn't have to visit her website. I'm not even saying he saw the Palin targets. I'm saying

So how does Palin react to recent events. She thinks she the victim of Blood Libel. Apparently she thinks she's being accused of killing the children of liberal parents, to brew Blood Tea which is drunk by wild revolutionary revelers in some Tea-Party rites. Apparently some people here think that's what she's being accused of. So let's be clear. What is Sarah really being asked to consider? That she has used imagery on her website that seems to some, even before the recent tragedy in Tucson but especially now, to solicit, even if only in humorous metaphor, the assassination of political targets. Imagery that may contribute to rash action when interpreted by unstable minds, and that contributes, even if unintentionally, to the general feeling among some that violent revolution maybe a viable Second Amendment remedy for some of our problems.

The call to brings arms to public meetings, encouraging Tea Partier to play at being armed revolutionaries, the suggestion that Second Amendment remedies may be proper courses to consider in our times, the GOP officially asking its candidates for party leader how many guns they own, etc. These all contribute to the climate that Loughner found himself inhabiting. Loons don't live in a bubble. You claim he's not political and yet he writes to his congressman. He went to political rallies. He attempted a political assassination.

But the GOP,had nothing to do with him,the lad was a registered independent.So he was not part of that environment.As far as is known he never attended a tea party rally. So you are right to an extent that he had political ideas, because he decided to register himself at some point as one.However we don't know at all whether he still had those ideas when he killed a bunch of people or attempted to assassinate the congresswoman . The idea that killing was political is at this point speculation.

Now this is also pure speculation but there was a posting by him on the daily kos, which has since been taken down, and of course could have been altered,where he said he felt betrayed by the congresswoman , and apparently she hadn't supported pelosi on something. He then said she had given him a flippant answer and he then said she was as good as dead. But his friend maintains he never really spoke to him about politics and he didn't seem political. I would suggest, it is too early to rush to judgement on any of it, which is what many people have done,to try and gain politically off this.Which I think either side doing it is sick.

He had apparently communicated with her on several previous occasions. It is also rumoured that his mother attended the same synagogue as the congresswoman as well. As I said earlier no one really knows the motive as yet.Even if we do find out ,what he claims the reason was, be prepared for it to make no real sense. Perhaps he got involved with politics because he fancied her who knows... And I certainly would not rely on that sheriff, he I do believe is trying to shift blame.I have never ever witnessed in all my days a law enforcement officer not stick to the facts,and leave the opinions and speculation to us. Because apart from anything else, any other info is potential material for the loonies defence. As many including I suspect the sheriff want to see him juiced up for this.

[arnie666]

The claim is not The claim is
That she (Palin) has used imagery on her website that seems to some, even before the recent tragedy in Tucson but especially now, to solicit, even if only in humorous metaphor, the assassination of political targets. Imagery that may contribute to rash action when interpreted by unstable minds, and that contributes, even if unintentionally, to the general feeling among some that violent revolution maybe a viable Second Amendment remedy for some of our problems.

No I read the bloggers and listened to some of the mscbc commentators just after the story broke,chrismatthews, the unrinator (olbermann) . the theme at that stage concerning Palin wasn't as sober as you are painting it at all. The media have since backtracked to an extent,public mood perhaps, legal issues,who knows, Levin himself is threatening to sue at any attempt to tie him to this. I would agree the above is what they are saying now.

[trish]

But the GOP,had nothing to do with him,What does that matter? Invocations to violence, whether they come from the right or the left contribute to the atmosphere that condones the possibility of Second Amendment solutions.


The idea that killing was political is at this point... ...a matter of definition. An assassination attempt was made on a member of Congress; that alone makes the tragedy a political one, by definition. Claiming Loughner's motives were not political is wildly speculative and highly unlikely given his posts to the internet, his attendance at prior political functions and his letter to Giffords. An acquaintance of Loughner reports he ask Giffords a question at a previous political event and was unhappy with her answer. Now you're even suggesting he was angry that Giffords didn't support Pelosi. So he was aware of and concerned with politics. He was upset with Giffords for political reasons and the climate, thanks to Palin, Angle, the Tea Party and others on both sides of the fence is such that Second Amendment solutions may be considered to be within reason.

[Faldur]

How can the simple use of a target icon be construed as an invocation of violence? The mere connection is asinine. The democrats repeatedly use the same symbol in their campaign adds.

Trish, we are targeting several members of Congress. We are targeting them to throw their asses out of Washington. They have failed to do anything the even remotely resembles representing the American people. And for there actions they shall be targeted for removal at the voting booth.

If you find that even remotely violent your frigging crazy.

[trish]

How can the simple use of a target icon be construed as an invocation of violence? The mere connection is asinine.Are you an idiot or something?


The democrats repeatedly use the same symbol in their campaign adds.If by democrats you mean some democrats, yes and those who did have contributed to the unfortunate confluence of events as well.

The word "target" has multiple meanings and uses...the "cross-hairs" symbol, not so many.

And for there actions they shall be targeted for removal at the voting booth.
If you find that even remotely violent your frigging crazy. You have just conceded my point. If Loughner was crazy, he might have taken some of the metaphorically violent calls to eliminate political opponents as general approval of real Second Amendment remedies.

I don't want to blame anyone, or sue anyone...I just want the people who have contributed to the climate of violence to realize it and exercise some self-restraint and demonstrate responsible behavior. The fact that Palin hasn't taken one step in this direction is why she in particular is taking a lot of flack.

[Ben]

Couple of interesting YT clips:

YouTube - Geraldo Gets Sheriff Dupnik To Directly Indict Sharron Angle & Sarah Palin For AZ Massacre (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJlJmtqPVK0&feature=related)

YouTube - Pima County (AZ) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik discusses the scourge of Arizona gun laws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2ru0ZCIpkY)

[Ben]

Op-Ed Columnist

Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/nicholasdkristof/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: January 12, 2011

To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?
Look, I’m an Oregon farm boy who was given a .22 rifle for my 12th birthday. I still shoot occasionally when visiting the family farm, and I understand one appeal of guns: they’re fun.
It’s also true that city slickers sometimes exaggerate the risk of any one gun. The authors of Freakonomics noted (http://freakonomicsbook.com/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/) that a home with a swimming pool is considerably more dangerous for small children than a home with a gun. They said that 1 child drowns annually for every 11,000 residential pools, but 1 child is shot dead for every 1 million-plus guns.
All that said, guns are far more deadly in America, not least because there are so many of them. There are about 85 guns per 100 people in the United States, and we are particularly awash in handguns.
(The only country I’ve seen that is more armed than America is Yemen. Near the town of Sadah, I dropped by a gun market where I was offered grenade launchers, machine guns, antitank mines, and even an anti-aircraft weapon. Yep, an N.R.A. dream! No pesky regulators. Just terrorism and a minor civil war.)
Just since the killings in Tucson, another 320 or so Americans have been killed by guns — anonymously, with barely a whisker of attention. By tomorrow it’ll be 400 deaths. Every day, about 80 people die from guns, and several times as many are injured.
Handgun sales in Arizona soared by 60 percent on Monday, according to Bloomberg News, as buyers sought to beat any beefing up of gun laws. People also often buy guns in hopes of being safer. But the evidence is overwhelming that firearms actually endanger those who own them. One scholar, John Lott Jr., published a book suggesting that more guns lead to less crime (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html), but many studies have now debunked (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayres/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf) that finding (although it’s also true that a boom in concealed weapons didn’t lead to the bloodbath that liberals had forecast).
A careful article forthcoming in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine by David Hemenway, a Harvard professor (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/david-hemenway/) who wrote a brilliant book a few years ago reframing the gun debate as a public health challenge, makes clear that a gun in the home makes you much more likely to be shot — by accident, by suicide or by homicide.
The chances that a gun will be used to deter a home invasion are unbelievably remote, and dialing 911 is more effective in reducing injury than brandishing a weapon, the journal article says. But it adds that American children are 11 times more likely to die in a gun accident than in other developed countries, because of the prevalence of guns.
Likewise, suicide rates are higher in states with more guns, simply because there are more gun suicides. Other kinds of suicide rates are no higher. And because most homicides in the home are by family members or acquaintances — not by an intruder — the presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of a gun murder in that home.
So what can be done? I asked Professor Hemenway how he would oversee a public health approach to reducing gun deaths and injuries. He suggested:
• Limit gun purchases to one per month per person, to reduce gun trafficking. And just as the government has cracked down on retailers who sell cigarettes to minors, get tough on gun dealers who sell to traffickers.
• Push for more gun safes, and make serial numbers harder to erase.
• Improve background checks and follow Canada in requiring a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun. And ban oversize magazines, such as the 33-bullet magazine allegedly used in Tucson. If the shooter had had to reload after firing 10 bullets, he might have been tackled earlier. And invest in new technologies such as “smart guns,” which can be fired only when near a separate wristband or after a fingerprint scan.
We can also learn from Australia, which in 1996 banned assault weapons and began buying back 650,000 of them. The impact is controversial and has sometimes been distorted. But the Journal of Public Health Policy notes that after the ban, the firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved.
Congress on Wednesday echoed with speeches honoring those shot in Tucson. That’s great — but hollow. The best memorial would be to regulate firearms every bit as seriously as we regulate automobiles or toys.

[Faldur]

Lets take another look at Sarah Palin's scary map..

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4d28bc7fcadcbb93230d0000/sarah-palin-giffords-map.jpg

Oh wow, "It's time to take a Stand", thats some strong language. "Lets take back the 20, together", and to think she said that right before an ELECTION.

How about we compare it to some Democrat maps..

http://www.postonpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/dccc-target-map.jpg

If somewhere a rogue pilot goes on a bombing spree with a B-17 these people are going to be in a lot of trouble.

http://usefulinfonation.com/p/dem-target.jpg

Ripe targets huh? This one almost looks like a call to all the psychopathic archers.

Your complete silence in regards to the movie depicting the assassination of a sitting President, along with two books detailing the same only shows your party's selective outrage.

Now lets look as some of the peace loving signs from left wing protests over the past 9 years.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/attachments/health-care/10404d1269579256-sarah-palin-targeting-congressional-supporters-health-care-bush-protestor-hate-sign.jpg

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/SubtleAntiBushSign.jpg

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dope.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/Bush_is_the_disease.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rallies_june_5+6_2004/signs/125-2584_IMG.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_G1vFx7mb8XA/SwcCG3Y1epI/AAAAAAAABqU/Yzn7H4ShOeI/s400/saveearthkillbush.jpg

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/vile5.jpg

[Faldur]

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/so-not-an-expert/assets_c/2010/03/RevolutionSign-thumb-autox379-107296.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/BushWhackerElMarco.jpg

http://www.publiusforum.com/images/bush_kill/bush_hangringo.jpg

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/death-to-bush-sign.jpg

Trish, your party doesn't have the credibility to even be in this argument. With your selective views on "hate speech", "women's rights", and "race". You want to point out Sarah Palin's map as hate, when you should look at your own people. How many times on Sarah's map did you see the word "Kill", or "Death to". You want to know why Americans are upset, look at your party. We're fed up with your "selective" vision, we are smart enough to see it all.

[Ben]

As I've said: Both the left and the right need to tone it down.

[Ben]

American author and blogger Glenn Greenwald writes: "Even if we were to create an absolute Police State -- the most extreme Police State we could conjure -- acts like the Arizona shooting would still happen. There are more than 300 million people in the U.S. and, inevitably, some of them are going to do very bad and very violent things. Thus has it always been and always will be. The mere existence of bad events is not evidence that the Government needs to be more empowered and liberties further restricted."
Glenn Greenwald further writes: "Having people do bad things is the price we pay for freedom. There is a cost to all liberty. Having to hear upsetting or toxic views is the price we pay for free speech; having propaganda spewed by large media outlets is the price we pay for a free press..."

Glenn Greenwald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Glenn_greenwald_portrait.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Glenn_greenwald_portrait.jpg/200px-Glenn_greenwald_portrait.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/00/Glenn_greenwald_portrait.jpg/200px-Glenn_greenwald_portrait.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald)

[onmyknees]

Were any of the wounded at Fort Hood Congressmen? I think there's your answer.

No...but they were certainly federal employees....soldiers....heros and thier boss was the Commander in Chief. So just what the hell are you saying Trish? A wounded Congress person warrants more sympathy than a bunch of dead GI's ?

Man...you're a big time fail on this thread. Not your finest moment baby ! ( but I still love you !)

[JamesHunt]

Gun control will do nothing but make crime worse...

I agree, ban guns in the US, and the price will shoot through the stratosphere thanks to organized crime

[Ben]

Depictions of both the loony left and the right...

YouTube - Ann Coulter calls John Edwards 'fag-ot' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MebGHNai8hE)

YouTube - The Looney Left (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hz2xP_YbB4)

YouTube - The call of the loony Left (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vehDDbMotuI)

[JerseyMike]

So Congressmen are all of the sudden the betters of American Soldiers? Congressmen are regular people, guarantee that if Loughner had ever stepped foot into a mosque the news media wouldn't have made this into such a media event.

[trish]

Trish, your party doesn't have the credibility to even be in this argument.Read again post #68. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=861548&postcount=68
The attempted assassination of a Congressman is by definition political, the motivation for the assassination need not be directly political, but the political climate (to which both parties contribute) that the perpetrator can misconstrue as permission to seek a Second Amendment course of action that will increase his self-worth. Whoever is calling for their supporters to bring their guns to rallies, whoever is telling people to aim and take down their political opponents is contributing to the climate of permissiveness toward Second Amendment remedies.


No...but they were certainly federal employees....soldiers....heros and thier boss was the Commander in Chief. So just what the hell are you saying Trish?Yes, and Postal Workers are federal employees too. What are you saying?

If it's your position that every soldier who dies in the field, or every federal employee who is murdered on the job no matter what the job, from intern to Senator, from judge to janitor, should have a nationally televised memorial service with a 33 minute oration by the president paid for by the taxpayer, then okay, you got my vote. But I don't think the media going to go along with it.

The attention any disaster or tragedy is going to get from the media or the government is a function of the nature of the disaster, what else is going on in the news cycle or occupying the attention of the president. Every tragedy is worthy of our attention, our prayers (if you're religious) and every touched family is worthy of our respect and sympathy. But not every tragedy is going to be treated equally. That's just a fact. (At least every soldier is recognized for her or his sacrifice each and every Memorial Day)


if Loughner had ever stepped foot into a mosque the news media wouldn't have made this into such a media event. If a Muslim cleric had posted a map with cross-hairs targeting various U.S. Congressmen and one of those Congressmen was shot by a crazed fundamentalist, no one would be able to build a mosque anywhere in the country, and the cleric would be under federal scrutiny.

[onmyknees]

"If a Muslim cleric had posted a map with cross-hairs targeting various U.S. Congressmen and one of those Congressmen was shot by a crazed fundamentalist, no one would be able to build a mosque anywhere in the country, and the cleric would be under federal scrutiny."


Not sure what the hell your point is what that one Trish.....but you still have drawn no correlation between cross hairs overlayed on a map and any violence. Your argument is flat, baseless and with lacks substantiation. So go ahead and play the Islomaphobia card...that'll work !!
I would say hate would be an apt description for what you "progressives" feel toward Palin...It manifests itself nearly every day, and as much as I have issues with her...I love her, not nearly so much for her politics...but because she never retreats ( can I still say that) and gets under your skin better than anybody in recent memory, and in so doing....exposes people like Krugman, Olbermann, and their ilk for the haters they truly are.

And what Muslim cleric might you be referring to?? The blind Sheik?

[onmyknees]

It Begins...........The Liberal Vocabulary Police !!

Can you see the narritive developing?? Watch the Major Networks, CNN , NY Times, Daily Kos, Huff Po, Media Matters and the like...they've all appearently got the message from the DNC or political operatives in the W.H. They'll be reading from the same sheet of music for the next several weeks...

Can you believe these people????????? Have they no shame??



In the Wake of Shooting, MSNBC's Chris Jansing Warns GOP on Using the Phrase 'Jobs-Killing' Health Care

By Scott Whitlock (http://www.newsbusters.org/bios/scott-whitlock.html) | January 14, 2011 | 12:52
In the wake of last Saturday's shooting spree in Arizona, MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing on Friday wondered if the phrase "jobs-killing health care" bill is now taboo. Speaking to a former speechwriter for Condi Rice, Jansing also speculated as to whether Barack Obama's address at a memorial service will "take some of the wind" out of the Republicans' sails.
Talking to speechwriter Elise Jordan, Jansing warned, "...Are you bothered at all by the fact that they refused to stop calling it a jobs killing health care repeal in this current environment?"
http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2011-01-14-MSNBC-Jansing.jpgShifting into a discussion of who would get credit, Jansing attempted to find the political upside for the President. Interviewing Latina magazine co-president Glaina Espinoza, the cable anchor speculated, " And, Galena, you don't want to talk about a tragedy in terms of political gain, but the President clearly impressed a lot of people at the memorial service. We have seen it, even before that, his poll numbers were inching up in pretty much every poll I have seen recently."
Jansing followed up by suggesting, "Does it take some of the wind out of the Republicans' sails, Elise?" Apparently, musing about the political gain Obama could reap from a memorial service is appropriate, but using an innocuous phrase like "jobs-killing" isn't.

[Ben]

YouTube - Gun control: Thom vs The Guardian Angel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORO9zV6hTmc)

[Ben]

YouTube - Should the shooter face death penalty? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9xLFnyodVA)

[trish]

Not sure what the hell your point is what that one TrishSure you do. Had you bothered to place it within it's proper context it would be obvious that it's a response to the second part of post #78, where JerseyMike actually played the Islamophobia card. You do this quoting people out of context thing quite a bit, and you act innocently confused and reinterpret the quote as if it were a response to different argument entirely. I beginning to find it quite boring.


you still have drawn no correlation between cross hairs overlayed on a map and any violence. Where have I said my aim was to establish a "correlation" between cross hairs overlayed on a map and violence? My claim involves a confluence of three things. (If you read with comprehension I wouldn't have to explain it again). First: Palin's cross-hairs, Angle's invocation of Second Amendment Remedies and other numerous uses of gun-language that are solicitous of action (language found on both the left and the right) creates an atmosphere that on the surface would seem to generally condone Second Amendment solutions to our problems. Second: The lax gun laws in Arizona (and elsewhere) put absolutely no obstacles in the path of a lunatic who wishes to legally acquire a semi-automatic glock 19 with an attachable 30 round magazine. Third: Unstable personalities are buffeted in unpredictable ways by the "behaviors and discussions" they see and hear around them. Such a personality might perceive that he can gain notoriety by performing a murder. He might think (perhaps mistakenly) that some subset of people would find his action justifiable, or praiseworthy. He might think there are people who actually wish someone, like him, would perform that murder for them.

The confluence of these three streams (climate, opportunity and the existence of unstable personalities) can result in tragedies like the one we've seen in Tucson. Are we talking cause and effect? No. We could've gotten lucky and gone through this period of our political history without disaster. But we didn't. Are we talking correlation? No. We would have to look at all similar tragedies in recent history, we would somehow have to measure the average person's exposure to violent language and the strength of the gun laws that were applicable for each incident. You don't have proof a non-correlation and I have made no claim to either a proof of correlation or a fact of correlation, for without the measures in place it's difficult to even know what one means by a correlation. I'm merely making a claim that any ordinary person can understand, namely climate and opportunity have brought Loughner to edge of acceptable behavior and he fell off the ledge.

There's not much we can do about the first stream in this confluence, except to ask people to back off the use of violent metaphors. Drama queens may call that "policing" but of course it's not. It's just letting politicians know some of us are going to judge them by what they say and how they say it. It's nothing new. It happens all the time. But I don't have much hope that we can change with social pressure the language stylings of Sarah Palin.

There's a lot we can do about the second stream of the confluence. We can pass reasonable gun legislation. How about starting with a limitation on the number of rounds a magazine can hold? Or how about requiring meaningful background checks on those who wish to purchase guns? Let's not sell guns to people with criminal records, or records of domestic violence or records of mental health problems. We might even keep a data base on people with mental health problems that we could check against when we do a background check. To have a more complete data base we would have to include people who can't afford to be treated for their mental health issues, which is a problem because if you haven't been treated you aren't in anyone's data base.

That brings us something we can do to circumvent the third stream of the confluence: We can have public health care for the mentally ill who can't afford care.

[Silcc69]

A bit late here but general observations,

1.White Male
2.22 years old
3.Loved Mein Kampf (book KKK and skinheads love as well-both groups are NOT liberal)
4.Publically hated people who don’t speak english. (Doesn’t align with liberalism)
5.Posted on Youtube that he hated our current government administration (Which would be Obama’s)
6.Posted on Youtube that currency without gold is useless (Same thing Glenn Beck preaches EVERY NIGHT)
7.Had a picture on his Myspace page with a gun on top of the constitution (Hmmm… Doesn’t sound like liberal symbolism. GUNS? Hmmm who loves guns?)
8.Doesn’t trust the government (Sounds like anti-government rhetoric, very un-liberal)
9.Murdered a woman who recently beat out a tea party candidate (No comment)
10. Was quoted in saying that he wanted to start a revolution by killing anyone associated with the ACLU and the Tide foundation (both liberal foundations)
11.Tagged “Sarah Palin” on his Youtube page
12.Another favorite book was Farrenheit 451, a book that discusses decreasing government’s role in terms of censorship (A Tea Party mantra)
13.Quoted to say: “Don’t trust the current government, listener!”
14. Giffords’ Republican opponent in the 2 November race for a seat in the House of Representatives was Jesse Kelly. He had held a campaign event in which he invited his supporters to “Get on Target for Victory in November”. He asked them to “Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office – shoot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse Kelly.”
15. Has posted comments from MySpace that show he is associated with the American Renaissance group a known white supremacist group that promotes the Tea party (http://www.businessinsider.com/alleged-az-shooter-may-have-links-to-pro-white-racist-organization-2011-1?sailthru_m=h2b)

[onmyknees]

Sure you do. Had you bothered to place it within it's proper context it would be obvious that it's a response to the second part of post #78, where JerseyMike actually played the Islamophobia card. You do this quoting people out of context thing quite a bit, and you act innocently confused and reinterpret the quote as if it were a response to different argument entirely. I beginning to find it quite boring.

Where have I said my aim was to establish a "correlation" between cross hairs overlayed on a map and violence? My claim involves a confluence of three things. (If you read with comprehension I wouldn't have to explain it again). First: Palin's cross-hairs, Angle's invocation of Second Amendment Remedies and other numerous uses of gun-language that are solicitous of action (language found on both the left and the right) creates an atmosphere that on the surface would seem to generally condone Second Amendment solutions to our problems. Second: The lax gun laws in Arizona (and elsewhere) put absolutely no obstacles in the path of a lunatic who wishes to legally acquire a semi-automatic glock 19 with an attachable 30 round magazine. Third: Unstable personalities are buffeted in unpredictable ways by the "behaviors and discussions" they see and hear around them. Such a personality might perceive that he can gain notoriety by performing a murder. He might think (perhaps mistakenly) that some subset of people would find his action justifiable, or praiseworthy. He might think there are people who actually wish someone, like him, would perform that murder for them.

The confluence of these three streams (climate, opportunity and the existence of unstable personalities) can result in tragedies like the one we've seen in Tucson. Are we talking cause and effect? No. We could've gotten lucky and gone through this period of our political history without disaster. But we didn't. Are we talking correlation? No. We would have to look at all similar tragedies in recent history, we would somehow have to measure the average person's exposure to violent language and the strength of the gun laws that were applicable for each incident. You don't have proof a non-correlation and I have made no claim to either a proof of correlation or a fact of correlation, for without the measures in place it's difficult to even know what one means by a correlation. I'm merely making a claim that any ordinary person can understand, namely climate and opportunity have brought Loughner to edge of acceptable behavior and he fell off the ledge.

There's not much we can do about the first stream in this confluence, except to ask people to back off the use of violent metaphors. Drama queens may call that "policing" but of course it's not. It's just letting politicians know some of us are going to judge them by what they say and how they say it. It's nothing new. It happens all the time. But I don't have much hope that we can change with social pressure the language stylings of Sarah Palin.

There's a lot we can do about the second stream of the confluence. We can pass reasonable gun legislation. How about starting with a limitation on the number of rounds a magazine can hold? Or how about requiring meaningful background checks on those who wish to purchase guns? Let's not sell guns to people with criminal records, or records of domestic violence or records of mental health problems. We might even keep a data base on people with mental health problems that we could check against when we do a background check. To have a more complete data base we would have to include people who can't afford to be treated for their mental health issues, which is a problem because if you haven't been treated you aren't in anyone's data base.

That brings us something we can do to circumvent the third stream of the confluence: We can have public health care for the mentally ill who can't afford care.


You're a wonderful writer Trish, and actually made a better case than the NY Times and other highly partisan publications, and you're ions more literate than Bill Maher who clumsily and ignorantly tries to explain the nexus of the shootings.
"Because we don't have government health care, that's one reason why a crazy person gets a gun because, you know what, it’s hard for a crazy person to get a job, so therefore it’s hard for them to get heath care in a country that doesn’t have government-"



You weave a wonderful, at times plausible case using words like confluence, metaphors, correlation, climate....I like your writing, and if were a copy editor for MSNBC I'd hire you in a heartbeat, BUT like any work of fiction, the reader must make certain assumptions, leaps of faith if you will. Such is the case with your retort. It's certainly more eloquent than most who have attempted to make the case, but facts at least at this point seem to smash headlong into your writings like a meteor hitting earth.

It's fascinating to me to see the left try to assemble a narrative they can use to fit a round plug into a round hole and thereby gain advantage. I'm not suggesting you're doing that, but you're aiding and assisting ! We see the increasingly unhinged Peter Beinhart attempting call this a terrorist act, then the ever talkative Sheriff who's convinced it's Rush Limbaugh , and don't look now but here comes the anti gun crowd seizing on the moment. ( let's dig up Jim Brady and put him in front of the camera for affect!) Krugman thinks the "correlation" lies with Palin. Bob Herbert laments "Government must take steps"..Slate Magazine..."Why the Tea Party are culprits", Richard Cohen.."Our insane handgun policy" See a pattern Trish ? It occurs to me when the only tool you have is a hammer, things tend to get broken into fragments. Your attempts to piece together confluence ( although you claim not to be doing that) seem to me to be rather fragmented. I see that attempt being made constantly in advertising where 2 completely non related thoughts are repeated over and over until the viewer melts the 2 together subconsciously. Budwieiser = Beautiful Buxom women scantily clad.....Palin= incendiary rhetoric that leads to violence. It's an ingenious, albeit nefarious attempt by you and the left, but it's not new. And the most diabolical thing is you claim not to be doing it...while you're doing it !!! LOL

You say..."There's not much we can do about the first stream in this confluence, except to ask people to back off the use of violent metaphors. " Ok...I don't wholly disagree with that, but in practically , not abstraction where do we begin? Do we let the editorial page on the NY Times judge the meaning of political metaphors? George Will provides this example..."Last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow explained (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/opinion/27blow.html) that "the optics must be irritating" to conservatives: Barrack Obama is black, Nancy Pelosi is female, Rep. Barney Frank is gay, Rep. Anthony Weiner (an unimportant Democrat, listed to serve Blow's purposes) is Jewish. "It's enough," Blow said, "to make a good old boy go crazy." The Times, which after the Tucson shooting said that "many on the right" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html) are guilty of "demonizing" people and of exploiting "arguments of division," apparently was comfortable with Blow's insinuation that conservatives are misogynistic, homophobic, racist anti-Semites. "

Or do we rely on each individual as the President suggests to use a measure self discipline? That would seem to be ultimately the most practical...however myself and millions of others have seen the map you so often sight and drew no conclusions other than they were "targeted" districts. The attempt to explain the randomness of what occurred in Tuscon and tie it to some social or political end, or root cause seems to be the problem with today's progressive mind. Was there ever a definitive resolution by the sociologists in the VA. Tech massacre? Have we successfully explained the recent bird deaths?

Your point with respect to mental illness is well taken however...The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that about 1% of the population suffers from schizophrenia, and that more than 25% of us have some kind of diagnosable mental disorder. This means that about 3 million people with psychosis are walking among us, as well as tens of millions more whose mental health is unstable in some way. And many of those who need treatment aren't receiving it. If the left invested the same energy in explaining these facts rather than act as Charlatans, we might have a civil discussion, but we're well past that point now... In the end, I tend to agree with The President, and with Jobe, that the cause of some of these things are unknowable to us.

If you looking to connect the dots Trish....may I suggest this to you....
In the coming days, let's try to objectively draw some corralation between the behavior of the left in response to this shooting, and this past November's election results. That might be far more constructive !

Peace.

[trish]

I read
...like any work of fiction, the reader must make certain assumptions, leaps of faith if you will. Such is the case with your retort. ... but facts at least at this point seem to smash headlong into your writings like a meteor hitting earth. I was eager to read on, to see what those assumptions, leaps of faith and antithetical facts were. To my dismay you lost your train of thought and went on instead to criticize other liberal commentators who weren't me and never came back to the meteor. So let's go on to the remedies instead.

You claim actually to be more optimistic about being able to do something about the first stream in my confluence scenario. But again, no proposal is forthcoming. But you do ask some questions:

Do we let the editorial page on the NY Times judge the meaning of political metaphors?Of course we let them. It's their First Amendment right. We let everybody judge, we let everybody speak, and we let each other know what we think of each others speech and their judgments; and if someone says "I think Sarah Palin's gun metaphors contribute to climate where citizens feel they need to "take back their country back" with arms in hand," they're not censoring or policing Mrs. Palin, they are expressing their analysis of the facts as they have judged them to be.


Or do we rely on each individual as the President suggests to use a measure self discipline?Seems to me the only thing we can do.


...myself and millions of others have seen the map you so often sight and drew no conclusions other than they were "targeted" districts.Myself, Representative Giffords and millions of others drew the conclusion that those cross-hairs could inspire others to Second Amendment Remedies. So in our estimation Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle exercised poor judgment (assuming their intentions weren't deliberately violent). In your estimation their judgment was sound. It would seem to me that Tucson should've vaporized your perspective like a meteor striking hard ground. It didn't and that's why I don't think we can expect much from asking people to use their good judgment.

You cite some statistics on the number of people suffering schizophrenia and other mental disorders. These sorts of statistics vary as the definitions of various mental disorders vary and as diagnostic tests vary. I'm not so concerned with why we have those numbers because in my opinion it's likely these are just roughly the percentages of any civilized population. My concern for people whose suffering is so extreme it prevents them from keeping a job, having a home or getting treatment. Yet, it doesn't seem to prevent them from acquiring guns.

This brings us to the stream you left out of your response: Better firearm regulation.

[onmyknees]

I read I was eager to read on, to see what those assumptions, leaps of faith and antithetical facts were. To my dismay you lost your train of thought and went on instead to criticize other liberal commentators who weren't me and never came back to the meteor. So let's go on to the remedies instead.

You claim actually to be more optimistic about being able to do something about the first stream in my confluence scenario. But again, no proposal is forthcoming. But you do ask some questions:
Of course we let them. It's their First Amendment right. We let everybody judge, we let everybody speak, and we let each other know what we think of each others speech and their judgments; and if someone says "I think Sarah Palin's gun metaphors contribute to climate where citizens feel they need to "take back their country back" with arms in hand," they're not censoring or policing Mrs. Palin, they are expressing their analysis of the facts as they have judged them to be.

Seems to me the only thing we can do.

Myself, Representative Giffords and millions of others drew the conclusion that those cross-hairs could inspire others to Second Amendment Remedies. So in our estimation Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle exercised poor judgment (assuming their intentions weren't deliberately violent). In your estimation their judgment was sound. It would seem to me that Tucson should've vaporized your perspective like a meteor striking hard ground. It didn't and that's why I don't think we can expect much from asking people to use their good judgment.

You cite some statistics on the number of people suffering schizophrenia and other mental disorders. These sorts of statistics vary as the definitions of various mental disorders vary and as diagnostic tests vary. I'm not so concerned with why we have those numbers because in my opinion it's likely these are just roughly the percentages of any civilized population. My concern for people whose suffering is so extreme it prevents them from keeping a job, having a home or getting treatment. Yet, it doesn't seem to prevent them from acquiring guns.

This brings us to the stream you left out of your response: Better firearm regulation.

Well good luck with that Trish...not going to happen with a Republican house, and a 5-4 majority on the court...and even if it were, (which depending on the legislation, I might be willing to go along) do you think that a sick twisted schizophrenic like Loughner isn't going to get a machete easily available at any Wal-Marts in the camping section and fulfill his destiny that way? Or fill a quart bottle with 93 octane and hurl it at his favorite target? Why is it the modern liberal mind can't come to terms with the fact that in a fee and open society there are those particular individuals who are either inherently sick...or evil...or both. Why do you find it necessary to try to place blame, or explain the unexplainable? What is your antidote for men like John Wayne Gacey, or a plethora of other mass murders who never used a firearm in their sick endeavors ?

As a political tactic, ( and that's what this is, maybe not by you...but most of your ilk ) recent history should show it has failed. The left's attempt to paint certain groups as racist resulted in increased anger on the right manifested by political movements and monumental defeat at the hands of yes...the Tea Party. There's a better than even chance you'll loose the Senate in 2 years by playing the blame game. I do place some distance between you and many who believe like you do, but at the end of the day...you fall in with the blame Palin first team.
You say you're familiar with firearms, and mention your father, and in previous posts explained your knowledge of farmers and farming, yet you never make allowances for the cultural differences between an upper east side progressive and a women raised on essentially the frontier. You cringe at the thought of Palin shooting a Caribou and living off the meat ...I know you do. I've been to Alaska many times, Idaho, Montana, all over the west. There are cultural differences in terms of vocabulary, and world view. I'm not on the Palin defense team, but from the day Mc Cain announced her, the hate and vitriol from the left has been instructive to watch, so this goes deeper than even this incident.

Your call for good judgement in terms of political speech, will no doubt be arbitrated by you. I'm sure we'll get a fair hearing on that....LOL. We should probably at some point transition this thread to examine the incredibly incendiary rhetoric on the left by the Alan Greyson's of the world, and at times by Obama himself, and the whole concerted effort to paint large portions of the population as racist...but since you're either a denier of that, or thus far have failed to come to terms with it, I see your attempt to lower the volume as one sided. Would I have used the Second Amendment remedies metaphor?....NO I would not have, but placing targets or cross hairs on a map seems to me acceptable political dialogue. I never for a moment took any of The President's heated metaphors ( they bring a knife..we'll bring a gun, get in thier faces, etc) as anything more than what they were. It's politics. You obviously differ. Again I ask you....where were the calls for civility from the President, the political left, and the beautiful Trish when Cantor's office was shot up? In my opinion that incident foretold what might come far more than cross hairs on a map. Consistency is what I look for.

[onmyknees]

A bit late here but general observations,

1.White Male
2.22 years old
3.Loved Mein Kampf (book KKK and skinheads love as well-both groups are NOT liberal)
4.Publically hated people who don’t speak english. (Doesn’t align with liberalism)
5.Posted on Youtube that he hated our current government administration (Which would be Obama’s)
6.Posted on Youtube that currency without gold is useless (Same thing Glenn Beck preaches EVERY NIGHT)
7.Had a picture on his Myspace page with a gun on top of the constitution (Hmmm… Doesn’t sound like liberal symbolism. GUNS? Hmmm who loves guns?)
8.Doesn’t trust the government (Sounds like anti-government rhetoric, very un-liberal)
9.Murdered a woman who recently beat out a tea party candidate (No comment)
10. Was quoted in saying that he wanted to start a revolution by killing anyone associated with the ACLU and the Tide foundation (both liberal foundations)
11.Tagged “Sarah Palin” on his Youtube page
12.Another favorite book was Farrenheit 451, a book that discusses decreasing government’s role in terms of censorship (A Tea Party mantra)
13.Quoted to say: “Don’t trust the current government, listener!”
14. Giffords’ Republican opponent in the 2 November race for a seat in the House of Representatives was Jesse Kelly. He had held a campaign event in which he invited his supporters to “Get on Target for Victory in November”. He asked them to “Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office – shoot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse Kelly.”
15. Has posted comments from MySpace that show he is associated with the American Renaissance group a known white supremacist group that promotes the Tea party (http://www.businessinsider.com/alleged-az-shooter-may-have-links-to-pro-white-racist-organization-2011-1?sailthru_m=h2b)

Even the far left bomb throwing blogs ( Opps....sorry about that) haven't attempted to connect the dots as you have, (and trust me...they're working round the clock to make a connection)...and neither have 57% of the American people, but you're certainly free to belive what you wanna beileve. The bottom line is this....you're attempting to explain the rationale and intent of a schizophrenic. I don't think even Frued could do that ! You're whole argument goes up in smoke when you look at the voting record of the Congresswoman. I urge you to do so. She was a Blue dog, moderatly conservative Democrat...........not a liberal. Puff...there goes your conspiracy theory !

And BTW...number 15 in your list has been proved to be entirely false...there was no connection.

[trish]

...do you think that a sick twisted schizophrenic like Loughner isn't going to get a machete easily available at any Wal-Marts in the camping section and fulfill his destiny that way?If guns are outlawed, then outlaws will have to use machetes. Sounds good to me. Think he could have killed six people and injured fourteen others with a machete? I think he'd have to be Danny Trejo.


Why is it the modern liberal mind can't come to terms with the fact that in a fee and open society there are those particular individuals who are either inherently sick...or evil...or both.Not only in free and open societies, but in all societies. But why do you insist we shouldn't make things difficult for sickly evil? If you outlaw murder, there will still be murderers; but that's no reason not to have laws against murder.


Why do you find it necessary to try to place blame, or explain the unexplainable?That's just the nature of intelligence: to investigate, attempt to understand, and find reasonable ways of solving problems.


You cringe at the thought of Palin shooting a Caribou and living off the meat ...I know you do.Then you better adjust your data base, because I ate venison just last week.


Your call for good judgment in terms of political speech, will no doubt be arbitrated by you.How could I or anyone arbitrate the speed of politicians and pundits. I can only express my satisfaction or dissatisfaction various politicians and I can only express to my friends or to people who kindly read my posts on pornographic chat rooms. I have no problem with heated dialog. I've said in this thread before that political dialog will always be heated and passionate. It's not the temperature of the dialog that concerns me (though I realize I'm at odd with the media on this point) but it is call to action that can be interpreted or reasonably misinterpreted as calls to violent action. I'm not opposed to trying to turn down the heat in general. Are you going to be the arbiter of that? :)


Would I have used the Second Amendment remedies metaphor?....NO Good for you. I'll just point out Second Amendment remedies is not a metaphor, Angle literally cautioned that armed revolution should not be ruled out of consideration.


I never for a moment took any of The President's heated metaphors ( they bring a knife..we'll bring a gun, get in thier faces, etc) as anything more than what they were.But the "If they bring a knife, then we'll bring a gun" line can be reasonably misinterpreted (e.g. outside the context of the metaphor) as a call to violent action. Indeed you wouldn't be quoting it if it wasn't so. Politicians, who are our elected leaders, and especially the president should be careful with their messages. "Get in their faces," doesn't make me cringe, the the knife thing does.

Again I ask you....where were the calls for civility from the President, the political left, and the beautiful Trish when Cantor's office was shot up?
RICHMOND, Va. - Richmond police say the bullet that hit a window of Republican Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor's office had been randomly fired skyward.
In my opinion that incident foretold what might come far more than cross hairs on a map.There were also James W. von Brunn, Richard Poplawski, and Andrew Joseph Stack III.


Consistency is what I look for. Consistency with the world is what I look for, and people who are willing to change their points of view over time to achieve empirical consistency.

BTW Correct me if I'm wrong but Post #85 has been Silcc's only contribution to this thread. About it you say,
The bottom line is this....you're attempting to explain the rationale and intent of a schizophrenic. I don't think even Frued could do that ! You're whole argument goes up in smoke when you look at the voting record of the Congresswoman. I urge you to do so. She was a Blue dog, moderatly conservative Democrat...........not a liberal. Puff...there goes your conspiracy theory ! I didn't see Silcc advocate any conspiracy theory or attempt to explain Loughner's behavior in anyway. He simply posted a list that seems to counter the claims by some in this thread that Loughner was apolitical, liberal, definitely not right leaning or acted in a bubble independent of the tides and currents of his surroundings. Isn't it ironic that you can so misinterpret Silcc's post and yet are so resistant to the possibility that someone might misunderstand Palin's target or Angle's call for Second Amendment remedies and pass that misunderstanding along adding to the climate of violence?

[Ben]

YouTube - Glenn Beck - Republicans Are Too Far Left (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s89PzsNCUs)

[Ben]

So, Glenn Beck thinks Republicans are: "... too far left."
I'm confused. If the Republicans are too far left, well, what are the Dems? And: is the Tea Party "right" enough? And is there such a thing as: too far right? Or: what's the right balance???

[Ben]

YouTube - What's the Modern Definition of a Conservative? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU1l6LKScs8)

[onmyknees]

So, Glenn Beck thinks Republicans are: "... too far left."
I'm confused. If the Republicans are too far left, well, what are the Dems? And: is the Tea Party "right" enough? And is there such a thing as: too far right? Or: what's the right balance???

Let me help you understand Ben....Beck and others think that in the end Republicans will compromise thier principals to get elected. He's correct, which is precisely why the Tea Pary has the Republicans shitting in thier undies !

[trish]

On the other hand, the Tea Party has uncompromisable principles, like: "Keep your government hands off my medicare."

[onmyknees]

"Of course we let them. It's their First Amendment right. We let everybody judge, we let everybody speak, and we let each other know what we think of each others speech and their judgments; and if someone says "I think Sarah Palin's gun metaphors contribute to climate where citizens feel they need to "take back their country back" with arms in hand," they're not censoring or policing Mrs. Palin, they are expressing their analysis of the facts as they have judged them to be."

I don't recall Ms. Palin saying "with arms in hand..". Perhaps you could point that out to me. The facts as they have judged them to be??? What facts? There are no facts in which they are basing their analysis on Trish. You know exactly what they're attempting to do. We have 2 sets of circumstances. The incident in Tucson, and the political speech of Ms. Palin. What the Times and others are not so subtly attempting to do is weave those 2 sets of circumstances together in an attempt not promote more speech , but render Ms. Palins speech irrelevant at best, violent at worst. The underlying intent is to promote a political agenda while coming dangerously close to associating a political enemy with mass murder. That's a far cry from your characterization of judging the facts !!!!!!!! Many of these stories were not on the OP-ED page, but on the front page. Once that happens, you've crossed the line from news to advocacy.
It would be one thing if I was out on a limb all alone on this one Trish, but alas even the hyperbolic, far leftie and Times "annalist" Charles Blow seems to throw in with me on this...Be careful Mr. Blow...you're indicting your employer. LOL

"Immediately after the news broke, the air became thick with conjecture, speculation and innuendo. There was a giddy, almost punch-drunk excitement on the left. The prophecy had been fulfilled: “words have consequences.” And now, the right’s rhetorical chickens had finally come home to roost.
The dots were too close and the temptation to connect them too strong. The target was a Democratic congresswoman. There was the map of her district in the cross hairs. There were her own prescient worries about overheated rhetoric.
Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right. The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting. (In fact, a couple of people who said they knew him have described him as either apolitical (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7xLg2C2iI0) or “quite liberal (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?_r=1).”) The picture emerging is of a sad and lonely soul slowly, and publicly, slipping into insanity.
I understand and respect that we see the world differently on many issues, but it truly astounds me you can't see the danger in the rush to judgement by the left.

[onmyknees]

If guns are outlawed, then outlaws will have to use machetes. Sounds good to me. Think he could have killed six people and injured fourteen others with a machete? I think he'd have to be Danny Trejo.

Not only in free and open societies, but in all societies. But why do you insist we shouldn't make things difficult for sickly evil? If you outlaw murder, there will still be murderers; but that's no reason not to have laws against murder.

That's just the nature of intelligence: to investigate, attempt to understand, and find reasonable ways of solving problems.

Then you better adjust your data base, because I ate venison just last week.

How could I or anyone arbitrate the speed of politicians and pundits. I can only express my satisfaction or dissatisfaction various politicians and I can only express to my friends or to people who kindly read my posts on pornographic chat rooms. I have no problem with heated dialog. I've said in this thread before that political dialog will always be heated and passionate. It's not the temperature of the dialog that concerns me (though I realize I'm at odd with the media on this point) but it is call to action that can be interpreted or reasonably misinterpreted as calls to violent action. I'm not opposed to trying to turn down the heat in general. Are you going to be the arbiter of that? :)

Good for you. I'll just point out Second Amendment remedies is not a metaphor, Angle literally cautioned that armed revolution should not be ruled out of consideration.

But the "If they bring a knife, then we'll bring a gun" line can be reasonably misinterpreted (e.g. outside the context of the metaphor) as a call to violent action. Indeed you wouldn't be quoting it if it wasn't so. Politicians, who are our elected leaders, and especially the president should be careful with their messages. "Get in their faces," doesn't make me cringe, the the knife thing does.
There were also James W. von Brunn, Richard Poplawski, and Andrew Joseph Stack III.

Consistency with the world is what I look for, and people who are willing to change their points of view over time to achieve empirical consistency.

BTW Correct me if I'm wrong but Post #85 has been Silcc's only contribution to this thread. About it you say, I didn't see Silcc advocate any conspiracy theory or attempt to explain Loughner's behavior in anyway. He simply posted a list that seems to counter the claims by some in this thread that Loughner was apolitical, liberal, definitely not right leaning or acted in a bubble independent of the tides and currents of his surroundings. Isn't it ironic that you can so misinterpret Silcc's post and yet are so resistant to the possibility that someone might misunderstand Palin's target or Angle's call for Second Amendment remedies and pass that misunderstanding along adding to the climate of violence?

Trish with respect to your last paragraph....now you're insulting the intelligence of me and other contributors to this thread, and I take that personally. The point of Silcc's thread was quite clear judging by the editorial comments in parenthesis he was attempting to connect the dots between the killer and the Tea Party, Beck, etc... How absurd is this....no one I know tried to tie the killer to the left wing, yet you and Silcc feel compelled to answer an argument ( with inaccuracies) that no one ever made than defend it bring up Palin again. That's sick ! If you want to make the argument that Loughner was a Tea Party sympathizer...make it, but don't play cute. In addition to more than a few of them already being proved to be half truths or completely false....his point was quite clear to me, and undoubtedly you...so why play this game? . This is the same charade you played initially and it's disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and not worthy of any more back and forth. We've gone past a difference of opinion. Correct you if you're wrong?? You're not only wrong Trish, you're insulting.

[trish]

I don't recall Ms. Palin saying "with arms in hand.."If you read my post, you will find I wasn't quoting Ms. Palin. What I said is that her persistent use of violent metaphor contributes to a climate where citizens feel they need to "take their country back" with arms in hand. The item in quotes is recognizable as a stock phrase of the tea partiers who said it and displayed it on signs as they toted guns into town-hall meetings to intimidate the First Amendment rights of their fellow citizens. The point I was making was this: asking Mrs. Palin and others to stow the violent language is not censorship, or policing. It's merely letting her and others know that they will be judged on what they say and how they say it.


The underlying intent is to ...There you go again, pretending to know the intent of others. I have never made intimations as to what Palin's intent might be, nor Loughner's. Nor has the New York Times intimated such knowlege. But in every other post you're telling me what people's intentions are and then claiming your analysis is based on facts. Yeah, right.


The prophecy had been fulfilled: “words have consequences.”What? Words don't have consequences. I thought you represent the party of responsible behavior, family value etc. etc. We engage in language precisely because it has consequences. Palin and Angle were attempting to structure a particular political climate. I'm not saying they attempted to get Giffords killed, but they certainly contributed to a climate that increased the risk of that happening.


The dots were too close and the temptation to connect them too strong. The target was a Democratic congresswoman. There was the map of her district in the cross hairs. There were her own prescient worries about overheated rhetoric. Agreed.


Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.Actually there was no hunt. No one had to look. The dots were too close together for anyone to ignore. They’re begging to be connected. So much so Sarah Palin removed her cross-hairs from her website before anyone said a thing. If there was a hunt going on, it took the form of conservatives scouring reams of speeches by liberal politicians, pundits and bloggers looking for scraps of violent language or language referring to guns and knives. Guns are Palin's personna. LOL


The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting.Do you not read? How many times are you going to make me say it. It’s not the overheated rhetoric; it’s not the temperature of discourse; it’s the literal call for Second Amendment remedies meant (presumably) as metaphor.

You said yourself the confluence scenario was plausible. Well if X,Y and Z are the plausible cause of six deaths and fourteen injuries, and if X, Y and Z still persist, don’t you think it’s plausible that diminishing the presence of X, Y and Z would diminish the risk of further tragedy? It’s not a matter of blame. It’s a matter of common sense prevention.

[trish]

I think you need to reread Silcc's post again. It establishes that Loughner was not liberal, was not apolitical and had views more aligned with Beck and the anti-American government crowd than anyone else. Silcc doesn't mention any conspiracy, nor intent, nor paint a line of blame from Palin to the attempted assassination. You're drawing that line, you're connecting those dots; the fact that that line is so clear in your head is what I find sadly ironic.

[Ben]

Let me help you understand Ben....Beck and others think that in the end Republicans will compromise thier principals to get elected. He's correct, which is precisely why the Tea Pary has the Republicans shitting in thier undies !

OK, what are Republican principles? (I'm not talking about actual conservative people. Just the political party itself. I'm saying that political parties -- be it the Dems or the Republicans -- are simply out to serve power. Be it state or corporate power.)
Why are both the Dems and Republicans gung-ho on offshoring jobs?
So, it's about power; nothing more, nothing less.
OK, there are good Republicans like Ron Paul. Extremely principled. I like Ron Paul. I like principled politicians. But they're a rarity.
Look at Obama. He said he'd go after corporate power. That's why a majority of Americans voted for him. He's done the antithesis. He's placating corporate power. (Now the term conservative has lost its actual meaning. If you go back over a hundred years the term or word, as it were, meant: controverting centralized authority... be it state or corporate. That's conservatism.)
But some go back to Burke. Burke felt that the affairs of the nation should be governed by the "smart" people, the elites. And people were and are too stupid to govern themselves. I mean, if we hand power over to the people, well, they'll screw it up. So, people shouldn't participate in the decision-making process. They shouldn't interfere. Hence: Bread and circuses. Give the people enough entertainment -- Brad Pitt flicks, porn, baseball -- and they won't give a damn about anything... namely running their own affairs.

[onmyknees]

OK, what are Republican principles? (I'm not talking about actual conservative people. Just the political party itself. I'm saying that political parties -- be it the Dems or the Republicans -- are simply out to serve power. Be it state or corporate power.)
Why are both the Dems and Republicans gung-ho on offshoring jobs?
So, it's about power; nothing more, nothing less.
OK, there are good Republicans like Ron Paul. Extremely principled. I like Ron Paul. I like principled politicians. But they're a rarity.
Look at Obama. He said he'd go after corporate power. That's why a majority of Americans voted for him. He's done the antithesis. He's placating corporate power. (Now the term conservative has lost its actual meaning. If you go back over a hundred years the term or word, as it were, meant: controverting centralized authority... be it state or corporate. That's conservatism.)
But some go back to Burke. Burke felt that the affairs of the nation should be governed by the "smart" people, the elites. And people were and are too stupid to govern themselves. I mean, if we hand power over to the people, well, they'll screw it up. So, people shouldn't participate in the decision-making process. They shouldn't interfere. Hence: Bread and circuses. Give the people enough entertainment -- Brad Pitt flicks, porn, baseball -- and they won't give a damn about anything... namely running their own affairs.


I'd like to help you but I'm not a Republican.

[notdrunk]

I think you need to reread Silcc's post again. It establishes that Loughner was not liberal, was not apolitical and had views more aligned with Beck and the anti-American government crowd than anyone else. Silcc doesn't mention any conspiracy, nor intent, nor paint a line of blame from Palin to the attempted assassination. You're drawing that line, you're connecting those dots; the fact that that line is so clear in your head is what I find sadly ironic.

I wouldn't say he is more aligned with Beck. Beck isn't the only pundit or person with gold bug fever. Additionally, Beck doesn't like the idea that there is a conspiracy was behind 9/11. Loughner's politics is conspiracy theories.

[hippifried]

This clown was just another teabaggin' dittohead klan/nazi, exercising his 2nd Amendment remedies. Remedies to what? Who the hell knows? Is he crazy? Of course he is. Aren't they all?

I'm just curious as to why so many of these toons have the middle name "Lee". Seems to be a theme.

[Faldur]

This clown was just another teabaggin' dittohead klan/nazi, exercising his 2nd Amendment remedies.

And you base that off what facts? Facts do matter do they not? Or we just winging shit now a days?

[Jackal]

And you base that off what facts? Facts do matter do they not? Or we just winging shit now a days?


Well, he did seem to be obsessed and faithful to nazism, now his connection to tea baggers is less clear at the moment.

[hippifried]

And you base that off what facts? Facts do matter do they not? Or we just winging shit now a days?
What facts? Got any? Who else is going to stalk & kill (try to anyway) a targeted democrat who couldn't get defeated at the polls? Give it a rest, spud. Nobody but another fruitcake is going to buy any of this "oh he couldn't possibly be one of us" or "it's not our fault" crap. As an American, I'm damn sick of this bullshit, & all the whining & hiding in the world won't clean off the blood stain. 6 dead, 13 wounded, & who knows how many lives shattered because fanatics are convincing other fanatics that democracy isn't good enough. The people in southeast Arizona have no Congressional representation now, & she's not coming back from the TBI. This nonsense is a disservice to everyone.

[Faldur]

Hippi, ya need to check your meds, your getting a little out of balance there.

The guy was insane, at last check I didn't know that the absolute mind whacked schizophrenics had a political party, nor representation in congress. And any speculation or stretch of the imagination you wish to impose is completely fact-less.

3 years ago this looser shows up to one of Rep. Giffords events and actually got called to ask a question. He asked, "What is government if words have no meaning?" Loughner was pissed that Giffords didn't answer his question. That sound like a rational question from a sane individual?

The guy was a "truther", know many conservative "truthers"?

His favorite list of books includes, "Mein Kampf", "The Communist Manifesto", along with two mind control of the masses books, "Animal Farm", and "Brave New World".

This guy was clearly insane. End of story, and now just for you.. a target.. :) It's all Sarah's fault!

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ZZ55BCA5B7.jpg

[Faldur]

Kids free?? Of coarse there free there using them as targets!!! Run babies run!!!

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/boonedems.bmp

[trish]

The use of literal calls to gun violence and armed revolution as metaphor for peaceful political action is just a bad idea. As the language gets passed on and amplified from person to person it creates a climate of permissiveness with regard to violence. It increases the risk that some nut will act out the violent fantasies harbored in the mind of the tea-bagging, anti-American government mob. This is not cause and effect. There may be no straight line from Palin's gun-sights and Angle's Second Amendment remedies, but it's just common sense that those kinds of calls to political action, no matter how well-intended, are just plain dangerous. Giffords knew that and asked Palin to tone it down. We all know that. It's just that there are some who think their "right" to talk shit and carry a gun is more valuable than human life.

1. The use of literal calls to solve political problems with violence intentioned as metaphors it stupid, dangerous, creates a climate of violence and obviously increases the risk of violence.

2. The proliferation of semi-automatic weapons obviously increases the risk of violence, accidental or deliberate.

3. The near absence of public health care for the mentally ill increases the risk of violence.

Are libertarians, republicans, tea-partiers willing to do anything meaningful about any of the factors that increase the risk of our exposure and our children's exposure to violence? No. It's more important to preserve the "right" to talk shit and carry extreme weaponry with lethality beyond any rationally conceivable use.

[Faldur]

Guns are legal, get over it.

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. HOLD THE PERSON ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, not the means they chose to utilize!!!

[hippifried]

The guy was a "truther", know many conservative "truthers"?
Using the modern political definition, as promoted by self-proclaimed conservative pundits, every single one.

This guy was just another reactionary terrorist, like McVey, or the anthrax mailer, or any of the toons who bomb abortion clinics, shoot people in church, or shoot up Jewish preschools, or just about any act of domestic terorism within the lifespan of most people in this forum. Hell, Islam is the most conservative religion in the world. Think there's a relation here? We're just talking degrees now. Schizophrenia is just a catchall term for crazy. I've seen no evidence that this guy was any more irrational than somebody who thinks liberalism equates to murder, or thinks that they can convince anyone but another schizophrenic conservative that it does. You can't mask a political hate crime with psychobabble, & the "lone wolf" is a myth.

[Faldur]

Your argument is pure speculation. When you get a single fact to back it up let me know. The progressive movement in this country seems to think selective vision, and made up opinions are substitutes for facts. The facts are that hate speech has originated from the progressives. Care to voice an opinion on the movie that depicted the assassination of a sitting President? I figured not.. The hate and vitriol that has come from the left will no longer be tolerated. You have no credibility in the argument. The more you flap your gums the more you expose your hypocrisy.

Keep preaching to the choir, the rest of us have kicked you to the curb.. Ooh, was that too hateful? I'm sorry, group hug..

[trish]

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. HOLD THE PERSON ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, not the means they chose to utilize!!!Pencils aren't designed to misspell words, though one can misspell a word with a pencil. Spoons aren't designed to make people fat, though they do making overeating less messy than it might be without utensils. Guns are specifically designed to kill, and semi-automatics are devastatingly efficient at it. Use the right tool for the right job and anything is easy. Pens and pencils don't write, people do. But think how difficult writing was when people used styluses and clay tablets. Today we can punch out 200 words per minute thanks to word processors. It's time we get serious about regulating the tools of mass murder. We can start by placing a serious legal limit on the number of rounds in a magazine. Next we can require serious background checks and waiting periods. We can ban guns from public buildings, playgrounds, schools, parks, town-hall meetings and political gatherings. So you have a small penis: a semi-automatic won't make it bigger...it just gives you away.

[hippifried]

Your argument is pure speculation...
Of course it is. & yours isn't? This shit is always speculation. It'll get sorted out through analysis of the trial or allocution. My speculation is based on the trends of past political hate crimes & the choice of targets. What's yours based on? Wishful thinking as far as I can tell. You're just slinging shit in hopes something will stick. You've got nothin'. Show me a liberal terrorist or assassin & maybe I'll think about giving you a smidgeon of credence. So far all I've seen is lies.

[Faldur]

Hippi, I don't agree my opinion the guy was nuttier than a fruit cake is based on speculation. If you look at the question he asked of the Congresswoman, if you review his youtube videos, look at the quotes of his previous teachers, classmates and friends you can make a reasonable determine based on those facts the guy was a nut case.

A nut case his former community college felt strongly enough was a threat to other students they had him banned from campus.

I make no assumptions other than his reading favorites as to his politics. Personally I think he was a-political, just a nut case.

[Faldur]

For you Hippi, this was an email sent by Lynda Sorenson, a 52 year old classmate of Jared Loughner's.

From June 1, the first day of class:
"One day down and nineteen to go. We do have one student in the class who was disruptive today, I'm not certain yet if he was on drugs (as one person surmised) or disturbed. He scares me a bit. The teacher tried to throw him out and he refused to go, so I talked to the teacher afterward. Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon."

From June 10:
"As for me, Thursday means the end to week two of algebra class. It seems to be going by quickly, but then I do have three weeks to go so we'll see how I feel by then. Class isn't dull as we have a seriously disturbed student in the class, and they are trying to figure out how to get rid of him before he does something bad, but on the other hand, until he does something bad, you can't do anything about him. Needless to say, I sit by
the door."

From June 14:
"We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living crap out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird. I sit by the door with my purse handy. If you see it on the news one night, know that I got out fast..."

The class's instructor, Ben McGahee, said in an interview Sunday that Loughner had been removed from class in its third or fourth week, because of repeated disruptions.


Facts.. Post me something to back up your claim, how'd you say it.. [QUOTE]just another teabaggin' dittohead klan/nazi/QUOTE]

[hippifried]

just another teabaggin' dittohead klan/nazi

Yup. He wouldn't be one if he wasn't mentally disturbed. You're just arguing over degrees.

[Faldur]

Yup. He wouldn't be one if he wasn't mentally disturbed. You're just arguing over degrees.

Lol, ok and what facts are you using to correlate the association with the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, the KKK? You wanna flap your gums back up your accusations with some facts. Otherwise live in the hipocrital vastness of your un-truths.

Without, you have no credibility in argument. It's becoming so obvious to the rest of us.

[Faldur]

Would one of you fricking progressives answer the question, would a movie released depicting Barak Obama's assassination be considered hate speech, or inciting violence?

(sound of crickets).... Your silence speaks volumes

[Faldur]

You know let's take this one step further. Trish, Hippi.. Sarah Palin has announced she is going to direct a multi-million dollar movie depicting the assassination of Barak Obama. I just can't wait to see your posts in support of her "creative freedom". Because you have already supported this movie created by another "artist", I'm sure Sarah will be excited to hear you guys are behind the project.

[trish]

I've already said in this that what Palin says should be up to Palin; she should only know that she will be judged on what and how she says it. I'm not interested in seeing any work of fiction (let alone paying to see it) that depicts the assassination of a real sitting president. I'm not aware aware of the movie that has you so upset, but if it fits my description above, then it doesn't have my support; not as a prospective audience member nor would it have my favorable judgment. Palin's and other's irresponsible and literal calls to violent political action used as metaphor has increased the risk of political assassinations. That was clear before the Tucson tragedy.

[hippifried]

I have no idea what this movie is that you keep harping on. I remember some flash in the pan whining about something a few years ago, but it couldn't have been much, or it would have made some kind of splash. Seems to me that there's been lots of movies based on presidential assinations or attempted ones. There's been a sitting President when each was made. This is irrelevant.

Sarah (I'll just quit before anybody figures out that I don't know anything about governance) Palin isn't going to be elected to any national office. It's beyond me why she gets ink, other than the entertainment value. The reason I lump all the fanatic pundits (Palin, Hannity, Bachman, Limbaugh, Malkin, bug-eyed Becky, etc...) together is that they all read from the same script. There's no ideas. Just personalization of problems, & a lot of pseudo-snide comments & accusations about the personalities. The problem is that they have a multitude of sycophants (dittoheads) as their audience. How rational can it possibly be to totally agree with anybody on everything? We've seen this throughout history. Groups of people become enthralled with a personality & follow it wherever it takes them. There's nothing liberal or conservative about any of it. This is just fanaticism, which is always irrational.

This is a liberal country, founded on liberal principles, which always win out in the end. There are some who just can't deal with it. That's who drives most violent fanaticism, from the media loudmouths to the most virolent klan/nazis who are bombing buildings & trying to bomb parades in Spokane. Those who would usurp the democratic process theough violent action are anti-American. This "Lee" is no different.

[Faldur]

Well I posted the movie trailer a few pages ago, sorry if you missed it.

Founded on liberal principles, I'm dying for you to share your thinking on that one.

[trish]

Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, or even heard of it until now. I'm wondering how many people have? Have people already voted against it and what its says with their pocketbooks? How much has it made at the box office? How much has it made on DVD? And what does it say, by the way? Again I haven't seen it and judging from the trailer, I don't want to either. Does it depict an assassination to make a strong case against it? Or does it encourage political assassination? Did it literally call for the assassination of Bush using the call as a metaphor to get out the vote? If any of the latter two, I'm glad I never paid to see it and I find it encouraging that it's not so very well known. If it's a literal call for assassination and the director or the producer maintain the call is in fact a metaphor then my judgment would be the film is despicable and irresponsible. I can't make Sarah Palin or irresponsible directors shut up. Nor do I want the government to hinder their political speech. But I do want Palin and irresponsible directors to take note that speech that increases the risk of violent political action will not be lucrative to their careers. What government can do is ban large magazines for semi-automatic weapons, make it harder for people to acquire semi-automatics, ban guns of any kind from parks, schools, town-halls, courtrooms, and other public areas.

This movie was a flop. It wasn't well received by anyone, liberals included. But what if it was a fiction about the assassination of Obama...would you see it? Would the typical tea-partier go see it? How many times? Would they take their guns?

[El Nino]

Lady Liberty says, "Don't fuck with the 2nd Amendment".

[trish]

Lady Liberty already banned fully automatic weapons, tactical nuclear weapons and land mines from parks, school grounds, town-halls etc.

[onmyknees]

Took a couple days off to chill. I really couldn't deal with some of the stuff I was reading on here post Tuscon. So now what are we onto ...Gun Control? After some of the speeches on the House floor by liberals in the last few days, I can see why we'd move off this "hate speech made him do it" mantra. LOL..The Tuscon DA has muzzled the big mouth Sheriff, polls overwhelming do not tie any speech to the shooting, so let's move on to gun control. This is a pet peeve of Trish. As soon as the Palin bashers stopped long enough to take a blow, here comes the Gun Control crowd. Most progressive bloggers and columnists transitioned to gun argument rather predictably. I'm sure they just dusted off a couple of old columns and presto. Rep Carolyn McCarthy amazingly waited 4 days before making it to the microphones to sing her single note tune. It's all so reactionary and really an effort in futility . Obama has zero appetite for it, we have a Republican House, and a moderate senate....Next.
I have no problem if a federal law is passed limiting the size of the clip, but it's such a waste of time really. A magazine can be easily made from plastic or sheet metal by any high school shop student, or in a basement. So what then?

[hippifried]

The movie's irrelevant.

Our very system of governance (sans monarchy) was considered radical when it was introduced. Perhaps this concept would be easier to grasp, Faldur, if you had a single clue what liberalism actually is. You'll never find out by shouting "megadittos" at the radio.

[onmyknees]

The movie's irrelevant.

Our very system of governance (sans monarchy) was considered radical when it was introduced. Perhaps this concept would be easier to grasp, Faldur, if you had a single clue what liberalism actually is. You'll never find out by shouting "megadittos" at the radio.

Well we know what modern day liberalism isn't....It isn't what John Locke and Thomas Payne envisioned. They wouldn't recognize what you moden day liberals have become. Thomas Payne wrote that "government even in its best state is a necessary evil". Compare that to a Nancy Pelosi controlled left wing Congress.
Adam Smith an early liberal thinker thought that the absence of interference from government and from other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their own unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others or the government. 21st century liberal are so far from the original concept that you tarnish the name.

[hippifried]

Well we know what modern day liberalism isn't....

No you don't, & you don't want to know anything. You just buy what you're sold. The only difference between you & this latest "Lee" is degrees of delusion.

[trish]

This is a pet peeve of Trish. As soon as the Palin bashers stopped long enough to take a blow, here comes the Gun Control crowd.Oh bullshit. Have you been reading my posts in this thread. Have I not said there is no direct line from Palin's speech to the shooting? You keep drawing that line (as if you can't help yourself from concluding Palin's actually to blame...it takes all your will to resist drawing the conclusion and seeing it in the thoughts of others...as only you can access them). Liberals (including myself) have steered way clear of that. Have I not posted pages back already that there's nothing we can do about Palin's speech but ask her (as Giffords did) to tone it down? You talk like we're just now giving up on Palin and taking up the possibility of gun regulation. Where have you been for the last week, on a drunk???


I have no problem if a federal law is passed limiting the size of the clip, but it's such a waste of time really. A magazine can be easily made from plastic or sheet metal by any high school shop student, or in a basement. So what then? Let the limp-dicks design and craft illegal magazines for their penis compensators then. It's time to make mass-murders work a little for their jollies and criminalize the tools of their trade.

[Faldur]

The movie's irrelevant.

Faldur, if you had a single clue what liberalism actually is. You'll never find out by shouting "megadittos" at the radio.

Firstly, the movie is very relevant. Ok, so tomorrow Sarin Palin is going to announce that she is commissioning 2 million dollars to fund a new movie showing violence and hatred towards Barak Obama, which ends in his assassination in the movie. And you, have now just told me that this is not hate speech, nor inflammatory of hate. But it is all irrelevant to the conversation. It's good to know your true position.

And I have a full understanding of what liberalism and progressivism is. I have studied it for sometime. It has nothing to do with the founding of this country, and only has to do with the social economical collapse we now face. We have liberalism to thank for that. And feel free to bring any FACTS that you can into the argument. You seem to be wanting in that department.

And lastly, I shout to no man..

[Ben]

Well we know what modern day liberalism isn't....It isn't what John Locke and Thomas Payne envisioned. They wouldn't recognize what you moden day liberals have become. Thomas Payne wrote that "government even in its best state is a necessary evil". Compare that to a Nancy Pelosi controlled left wing Congress.
Adam Smith an early liberal thinker thought that the absence of interference from government and from other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their own unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others or the government. 21st century liberal are so far from the original concept that you tarnish the name.

What classical liberals -- or conservatives (as conservatism came out of classical liberalism) -- rejected was concentrated power. Be it government -- or corporate. In Adam Smith's day they were the merchants and manufacturers.
What we call capitalism, well, Adam Smith despised. Adam Smith said that the so-called division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.
And the real Adam Smith had an argument for markets. He said, with respect to markets, that under conditions of perfect liberty you get perfect equality. If you read through his work, he's certainly intelligent. He's a person who was from the Enlightenment. His driving motives were the assumption that people were guided by sympathy, feelings of solidarity and the need for control of their own work. Much like other Enlightenment and early Romantic thinkers. He's part of the Scottish Enlightenment. (When we say, Let's get rid of government, well, we've gotta think about what's two steps behind government. Namely unaccountable private tyrannies. Or corporations.
You and I have no influence over a corporation. They're authoritarian institutions. Whereas we've some say with respect to government. I mean, without government providing some defense against corporate power, well, we'd be living in a dungeon.

[onmyknees]

What classical liberals -- or conservatives (as conservatism came out of classical liberalism) -- rejected was concentrated power. Be it government -- or corporate. In Adam Smith's day they were the merchants and manufacturers.
What we call capitalism, well, Adam Smith despised. Adam Smith said that the so-called division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.
And the real Adam Smith had an argument for markets. He said, with respect to markets, that under conditions of perfect liberty you get perfect equality. If you read through his work, he's certainly intelligent. He's a person who was from the Enlightenment. His driving motives were the assumption that people were guided by sympathy, feelings of solidarity and the need for control of their own work. Much like other Enlightenment and early Romantic thinkers. He's part of the Scottish Enlightenment. (When we say, Let's get rid of government, well, we've gotta think about what's two steps behind government. Namely unaccountable private tyrannies. Or corporations.
You and I have no influence over a corporation. They're authoritarian institutions. Whereas we've some say with respect to government. I mean, without government providing some defense against corporate power, well, we'd be living in a dungeon.

Well that's interesting Ben ! I do give you extra credit for being consistant...you've lamented about big bussiness for some time now. But I find the silence of progressives rather interesting. Recall when we had to fight our way through the misinformation that the libs pounded away on Cheney and Haliberton ? Oh man...did they sink thier fangs into that one !!
So now we have a liberal in the White House and all that coziness with big bizz should be all over.........right? I mean he's for the little guy, or so the libs told us. I've been listening and waiting for some anxiety or straight talk about Obama's best busom bizz pal Jeffery Immelt, and haven't heard a peep....( crickets sound) . Curious.

[trish]

Liberals characterized Obama as a pragmatist. It was the conservatives who screamed that he was a radical liberal, way too far left, a socialist and according to some a communist. As usual the libs were correct.

[onmyknees]

Liberals characterized Obama as a pragmatist. It was the conservatives who screamed that he was a radical liberal, way too far left, a socialist and according to some a communist. As usual the libs were correct.

Man that's twisted. We called him a far left liberal based on his associations, and his voting record in the Senate, ( check the FACTS) as usual we did our research beforehand. BTW...he was sure to throw all those old questionable associations under the bus. He was rated the most liberal memebr of the Senate by people who rate such things. We called him that not as a slur, but because that's what he was. If you want to play word games, feel free and pleasure yourself by calling him a pragmatist.

When your party loose 63 seats in the house, and 20 state legislatures, it's time to call yourself a "pragmatist" !!! I'm still not convinced, but I see you are !! LMAO

Fail Trish....Thanks for the lobbing the softball.

[trish]

Man that's twisted. We called him a far left liberal based on his associations,Yes, that's twisted. He was appointed to a Chicago commission on education to which a 60's radical turned educator was also appointed. That's one of the "associations" that had the rights panties all up in a bunch.
We called him a far left liberal based on...his voting record in the SenateYeah, like anybody's voting record could be called far left! None of the proposals Obama voted on (for or against) while he was in the Senate could be remotely called far left. He even voted to invade Afghanistan. Even as president the farthest left program he supported was Nixon's health-care plan.
as usual we did our research beforehand.If you had done your homework you would have known he was a close-to-the-center-democrat. He ran on bipartisanship, and the main complaint liberals level against him is that he's too even handed. I knew I was voting for a pragmatist. Illinoisans knew that. All liberals understood that. He was being billed as a pragmatist during the campaign. Hell, the Democratic Party hasn't run any real liberals for the office of president since FDR.

[onmyknees]

Yes, that's twisted. He was appointed to a Chicago commission on education to which a 60's radical turned educator was also appointed. That's one of the "associations" that had the rights panties all up in a bunch. Yeah, like anybody's voting record could be called far left! None of the proposals Obama voted on (for or against) while he was in the Senate could be remotely called far left. He even voted to invade Afghanistan. Even as president the farthest left program he supported was Nixon's health-care plan. If you had done your homework you would have known he was a close-to-the-center-democrat. He ran on bipartisanship, and the main complaint liberals level against him is that he's too even handed. I knew I was voting for a pragmatist. Illinoisans knew that. All liberals understood that. He was being billed as a pragmatist during the campaign. Hell, the Democratic Party hasn't run any real liberals for the office of president since FDR.


Trish....quite delusional, but at least funny. If you think this guy in his heart.....not the words that flow from his mouth is a centrist democrat, with all due respect you're OTL ( Out to Lunch)
There is nothing .........absolutely nothing to suggest that. You're a huge researcher, you claim....so go back to his college days, and his associations there, ( I have and you should too...it's instructive) his early days as a community organizer, his associations with Marxist loving connections and friends( political and other) in Chicago. I gave you the facts that he was rated the most left wing Senator in his short career. You give me back fluff ! His books, his associations none of it make one reference to any moderate, centrist or god forbid conservative he admired. He had a cup of coffee with Dick Lugar on some fairly insignificant arms reduction legislation, and was never known as someone who worked across the aisle with others.

If you're talking about his campaign........well then that's different, but that's not who he is...that's simply what he said to win independents...come on...you know politicians will say whatever they have to...goodness !! This guy is the most liberal President since FDR, and he's still not left enough for ya'll, so that should tell you how far out of the mainstream you all really are !!!!!

The fact that after an ass whopping, he seems to be saying some moderate things means nothing other than he got an ass whopping. Show me...don't tell me about it..I know moderates, and this guys no moderate. This guy didn't talk to the Senate minority leader for 9 months, so don't feed me this shit about his pragmatism !!!!!! He gave lip service to republican suggestions on health care...but any member will tell you his administration never reached out to a single republican during the entire 8 month debate. Moderate my ass !!!! Remember that famous Time Magazine cover where they had Obama in an FDR hat and glasses? It takes a bunch of liberals to know a liberal !!!!!! LOL

If he was the pragmatist you claim he is, then only you know it because the independents that elected him have all deserted him. Don't take it from me...take it from them !

I really don't understand left wingers...you have the guy you're waited on for generations, you weren't calling him a moderate or pragmatist 3 months into his first term..!!!!! Most of you were still on an MSNBC high from the election. Now you have him....you deny him. Strange.

[Ben]

Well that's interesting Ben ! I do give you extra credit for being consistant...you've lamented about big bussiness for some time now. But I find the silence of progressives rather interesting. Recall when we had to fight our way through the misinformation that the libs pounded away on Cheney and Haliberton ? Oh man...did they sink thier fangs into that one !!
So now we have a liberal in the White House and all that coziness with big bizz should be all over.........right? I mean he's for the little guy, or so the libs told us. I've been listening and waiting for some anxiety or straight talk about Obama's best busom bizz pal Jeffery Immelt, and haven't heard a peep....( crickets sound) . Curious.

Again, I don't think the likes of Olbermann [and, too, say, Rachel Maddow] are the left. (What about the term centrist? Isn't that more applicable?) Because if Olbermann is the left, well, the left are attacking the left. (I, too, would characterize President Obama as a moderate Republican. Yes! He's a centrist, too.) I'd characterize Michael Moore as the left.
Remember that Olbermann viciously denounced Michael Moore in 2003. As did Al Franken. Supposedly also of the left. But Franken isn't of the left.
I think we should, well, maybe redefine the likes of Maddow, Matthews and Olbermann and say they're simply centrists.
Most Americans are left of center. You know, they support gay marriage, increasing taxes on the rich corporate sector, cutting military expenditures etc.
I mean, just like there's a difference between Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists. Social Democrats want to slightly tinker with state capitalism to bring about social justice.
So, under Social Democrats state capitalism (as the state does play a role in capitalism) will be maintained. But Democratic Socialists want to democratize the entire economy.
And I should underscore this: most Americans are NOT as left as Noam Chomsky. He has even said that. (And most Americans are not as right wing as, say, Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. Again, most Americans are centrist. Left of center.)
So, the extreme left and the extreme right are the minority in America.... And, lastly, there are certain states that are more conservative than others. I'd say, unquestionably, that Texas is more conservative than Massachusetts -- ha! ha! But it's true. :)

[trish]

I gave you the facts ... You give me back fluff !
...he was rated the most liberal memebr of the senate by people who rate such things.lmao

[onmyknees]

lmao

I like your passion Trish, and I like you. You confound and at times aggravate me, but that's cool. I have more respect for somebody who's in tune with shit going on around us, than all these morons walking around with no clue on our history, our culture, our rights and liberties, or our politics. And besides you're pretty hot, but I have to guard against that, lest I start to go easy on you !!!!!!!! LOL