Arizona Congresswoman (D) Gabrielle Gifford MURDERED

[kaiser soze]

Fucking Unbelievable - Assassinated

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords died after being shot in the head at a public event on Saturday, Pima County, Ariz., sheriff's office confirms. The 40-year-old Democrat was outside a Tucson grocery store when a gunman ran up and began firing indiscriminately. The suspect was taken into police custody.

Please take a close look at this map - She was a target. Any correlation? Who knows - here is hoping law enforcement and the media are honest about this.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/sarahpac_0.jpg

Reports saying 4/6 others killed - others injured.

NPR changed story, conflicting reports of her survival - here's hoping she survives

KOLD.com (http://www.kold.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?vt1=l&d1=0&ClipId1=mms%3A//a1925.l2053733750.c20537.n.lm.akamaistream.net/D/1925/20537/v0001/reflector%3A33750&LiveURI=mms%3A//a1925.l2053733750.c20537.n.lm.akamaistream.net/D/1925/20537/v0001/reflector%3A33750&h1=KOLD%20live%20stream&at1=News&LiveURITitle=KOLD%20live%20stream&LaunchPageAdTag=News&fvCatNo=undefined&secure=undefined&akPort=undefined&akProfile=undefined&rnd=86889839)

[Turchinator]

Congresswoman Giffords is still alive in critical condition with a gunshot wound to the head...

[kaiser soze]

I wonder why NPR initially posted her being killed?

sorry for the misinformation KLOD reported her surviving and then passing as well and back again.

godspeed to her recovery

[kaiser soze]

Sarah Palin Facebook discussion with the PAC image including Gifford's name has been scrubbed

http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=24718773587&status=512

if she has nothing to hide than there's nothing to fear? - that's what bush said

Why is it slow to get eyewitness accounts of the shooter? This was a mass shooting near a mall - someone/cameras saw something?!

[Whatitis]

I hope she pulls through mainly for her, her family and the idiot the wanted to kill her. Also for the people/news agencies that are too quick to report.

[kaiser soze]

Gifford's opponent (Teabag) held event to "Get on Target - Remove Gifford"

http://firedoglake.com/2011/01/08/giffords-opponent-jesse-kelly-held-june-event-to-shoot-a-fully-automatic-m16-to-get-on-target-and-remove-gabrielle-giffords

also reportedly scrubbed

Jesse Kelly, meanwhile, doesn’t seem to be bothered in the least by the Sarah Palin controversy earlier this year, when she released a list of targeted races in crosshairs, urging followers to “reload” and “aim” for Democrats. Critics said she was inciting violence.

He seems to be embracing his fellow tea partier’s idea. Kelly’s campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”

[kaiser soze]

Gifford's victim of previous violence

http://kateoplis.tumblr.com/post/2655554409/msnbc-talks-to-rep-gabrielle-gifford-about-the

Hate to say it and to prove my point but Violent Rhetoric leads to these horrors

Time to investigate all politicians using/promoting violence directly or indirectly.

[Turchinator]

looks like she is going to pull through.

[saz]

^ very good news. meanwhile, apparently federal judge john m. roll and a nine year-old have died from their wounds.

the perpetrator has been identified as 22 year-old jared lee loughner. it looks like his myspace page has been deleted, but his youtube channel (if it really is his) is still available, and it's kind of disturbing:

http://bit.ly/egw1RL

[Whatitis]

Sarah Palin Facebook discussion with the PAC image including Gifford's name has been scrubbed

http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=24718773587&status=512

if she has nothing to hide than there's nothing to fear? - that's what bush said

Palin's PAC image was distasteful at best, even 10 months ago, but if you think for one minute that her taking it down is something to hide you are absolutely fooling yourself. Believe it or not repubs, even Palin, have a little bit more compassion and respect than you want to give them.

[Drederick Tatum]

so Palin's taking down of a map which literally targets Giffords with crosshairs and the words "It's time to take a stand" was done out of "compassion and respect"?

How about having the compassion and respect to not put up something like that in the first place?

[Whatitis]

I am not condoning the PAC at all! But simply stating that taking it down is the better thing to do. Fucking spinners!

[saz]

well, like tatum said, perhaps palin et al shouldn't have stooped to such lows in the first place, because idiots can take that sort of message quite literally.

[kaiser soze]

Why is it out of respect? What is Sarah Palin? Captain Hindsight? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_oKve-bH0)

We have learned from the past that violent rhetoric does not make peace but only breeds violence. I guess all these quotes (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/888512) should be retracted out of respect..

And as you can see from the video - she has been targeted before.

Congresswoman Gifford may be safe, but unfortunately John Roll, chief judge of the U.S. District Court of Arizona and a 9 year old girl were killed.

This is the result of "Second Amendment Remedies" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/arizona-and-second-amendm_b_806255.html)

[kaiser soze]

Devastating - 9 year old victim of shooting identified as Christina Taylor Greene. A child featured in "Faces of Hope - Babies born on 9/11"

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7832686-rip-christina-taylor-green-born-on-911-died-today-by-a-gunmans-hand

http://www.kvoa.com/news/9-year-old-victim-of-deadly-rampage-identified/

Born on September 11, 2001, Greene was excited about the political process, was on the student government, and went to the Giffords event today to learn more about the political process, family members say.

May her hope live on for all who fall victim to violence.

[saz]

interesting


GOP Senator: Rhetoric Needs To Be Toned Down After Giffords Shooting

Posted: 01- 9-11 03:34 PM
The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/gop-senator-rhetoric-need_n_806462.html)


"We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said on Saturday after the shooting.

Now, he's being joined by at least one Republican senator.

"There is a need for some reflection here -- what is too far now?" the unnamed senator told Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47294.html#ixzz1AZKbrhLR). "What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There's been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody's trying to outdo each other."

When it comes to the Tea Party, the senator stressed that they should not be unfairly blamed for the attack. "They're talking about things most mainstream Americans are talking about, like spending and debt," he said. But, he acknowledged, "tone matters."


Sheriff Clarence Dupnik: Arizona 'Mecca For Prejudice & Bigotry'

First Posted: 01- 8-11 11:18 PM | Updated: 01- 9-11 08:28 AM
The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/sheriff-clarence-dupnik-a_n_806303.html)


After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head and a number of others were wounded or killed in a shooting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html) in Tucson, Ariz. on Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said that the state has "become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

Addressing the tragedy at a news conference, the sheriff said that law enforcement had reason to believe that Giffords was specifically targeted in the attack. He added that evidence suggests one suspect -- 22-year-old Jared Loughner (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/jared-lee-loughner-gabrielle-giffords-shooter_n_806243.html), who is already in custody -- likely did not act alone.

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

When asked by a reporter if Giffords being shot could have been motivated by "prejudice and bigotry," Dupnik responded, "All I can tell you is that there's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol."

While speaking, the sheriff said that himself it included, "it's not unusual for all public officials to get threats." However, he said the sentiment doesn't come without consequences.

"And that's the sad thing of what's going on in America," he explained. "Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serve in public office."

[travesty]

I can always count on the BBMB for folks jumping to conclusions and pointing the finger before all of the evidence is heard.

Has anyone seen or heard anything that this guy has said or written that would indicate that he listens to political pundits of one side or the other? I haven't.

Have you seen anything he has said or written that mentions one political party or the other? I haven't.

Wanna blame Palin for a "Target" map? Appearantly she got the idea from the Dem Congressional Campaign Comittee and the Dem Leadership Comittee (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=20406)

Can I say once again, This is a tragedy, please reserve your judgement until all of the evidence is heard.

And I also have to ask...why not a single post when an avowed liberal starts shooting up a school board meeting in FL but everyone wants to pile on this guy? Odd.

[kaiser soze]

Sorry about the title of the thread - NPR mis-reported and yes I didn't vet reports out of shock. Secondly thanks for keeping your cool and not resorting to namecalling.

When it comes to violent rhetoric and it's effects (and bbmber's are not the only ones bringing this up as we can see in the news)....it has an impact regardless if it is complicit in the crime or not as we can see people being concerned with jumping to conclusions, scrubbing websites, and PR defense.

And yes comparisons are being made, but I hate to say it - There is a difference. Please excuse me if you think I'm being naive but people were keyed the fuck up this past presidential election. Along with the map and explicitly battle toned language, there was heightened militia minded behavior, brandishing of guns, threats of assassination, and violence.

Palin's name has popped up in regards to attacks on other representatives and threats against the President himself. Yes these politicians might think it's cute and all to act tough and shit - but sad to say there are very unstable people out there who may interpret their messages with devastating effect.

To continue supporting either passively or directly this kind of rhetoric espoused by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Palin (all very worshiped assholes as well) is to only welcome more consequence.

The knee jerk response is COMPLETELY acceptable after the shit we have seen and dealt with. I'd rather people blame those who have proven that they are willing to resort to violent ends which is actually the deadlier of knee jerks.

[p-branez]

^Agreed (with travesty). The online writings I've seen that may/may not be the suspected shooter's deal mostly with grammar and mind control.

It's like every time there's a school shooting someone goes on the news and says, "Yup, it's all those violent video games kids are playing. And the loud music with all the bad words."

[kaiser soze]

Seeing that Giffords has been a victim of attacks (http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_eb24e4fe-35dc-11df-ad88-001cc4c03286.html) before so it must be understood why people are concerned and have responded the way they have.

The rhetoric has been addressed and hopefully attitudes will be adjusted, unfortunately the shit that has been spewed cannot be fingered as the fault any of these times because people always blame perpetrators - Glen Beck was never seen as an accessory towards violence concerning the Tides Foundation assassination attempt.

O'reilly for the Tiller murder? nope.

yeah, so the people perpetuating this vitriol have gotten off easy and eventually people will say enough it enough.

[Turchinator]

^Agreed (with travesty). The online writings I've seen that may/may not be the suspected shooter's deal mostly with grammar and mind control.

It's like every time there's a school shooting someone goes on the news and says, "Yup, it's all those violent video games kids are playing. And the loud music with all the bad words."

it happened in Arizona.

Arizona is the site of the Town Hall meetings with weapons.

Arizona is a political hotbed of dissent right now with immigration issues and anti-government rhetoric.

Killer is anti-government.

Giffords is the target of radio hosts and tv personalities in the state as someone who needs to be removed.

Giffords is the previous target of death threats and vandalism.

Giffords is one of 20 Democrats listed as targets (with crosshairs) that says "Take Them Back" and "Time to Take a Stand"

Giffords was shot at a political rally by an anti government Arizonan.







is it that hard to connect some dots here?

[travesty]

OK Kettle Kaiser. Dude you are exactly the kind of person you are railing against. You do nothing on this board except espouse one-sided partisan attacks. I've said it before, you are no different than Beck or Limbaugh you just have a much smaller audience. Your left-wing bomb throwing and intolerance for all things conservative is exactly the kind of behavior that stirs all of this shit up. Your are the master of partisan hate "rhetoric" and left wing "vitriol". You are the first to attack and last to apologize (as in never). If you want the the political tone in America to change....start with the man in the mirror.

[Whatitis]

Vitriol, the new word in everyones vocabulary. Much like vigilance from 9-11. I agree it's bad and it should and more than likely will be toned down after this tragic event.

Kaiser, you want to keep pointing to the right but look at the vitriol you spew. I understand you are passionate but there has to be media outlets the you listen to, agree and help get your rhetoric from as well. I am just saying it's comming from both sides and has been for a long time.

[Turchinator]

don't forget rhetoric and ad hominem.

it's "coming"

[Schmeltz]

I really don't think the political leanings of this particular individual, whatever they were, are as important to this particular case as the fact that he is clearly mentally disturbed. But in broader terms it is impossible to separate an attempt on the life of an American political figure from the context of American political discourse, and any examination of that discourse paints a pretty sorry picture of the toxic, violent, and explicitly threatening vitriol coming from the political right - the firearms-loving, paranoid, anti-government Tea Party in particular. This timeline of the growth in right-wing anti-government extremism in the last few years (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline) has been making the internet rounds in the wake of the shooting. Here are a few choice excerpts:


July 15, 2009—Katherine Crabill, a Republican candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates in the state’s 99th District makes headlines by calling on Americans to resist the course President Obama has set for the country. Appearing at a “Tea Party” rally, Crabill quotes a 1775 speech by Patrick Henry and then states, “We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting. But make no mistake. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny.” This thought is reinforced on Crabill’s campaign website, where she states the Second Amendment “was clearly intended for self defense as well as, and more specifically, to keep the government on notice of an armed citizenry.”

January 2, 2010—More than 300 people attend a rally in Alamogordo, New Mexico, organized by the local Otero Tea Party Patriots and Second Amendment Task Force. The purpose of the rally is to protest health care reform, and many of the rally's participants openly carry handguns and/or rifles. One attendee states that his handgun is a “very open threat” to the “socialist communists” in the Obama Administration.

March 19-22, 2010—During consideration of health care reform legislation by the U.S. House of Representatives, vandals attack Democratic offices in Pleasant Ridge, Ohio; Wichita, Kansas; Tuscon, Arizona; Niagra Falls, New York; and Rochester, New York. Mike Vanderboegh, the former leader of f the Alabama Constitutional Militia, takes credit for the violence after posting a blog on March 19 that states, "If we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democratic party headquarters across this country, we might just make up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary." Several Democratic members receive death threats, including Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who is told snipers will "kill the children of the members who voted YES"; Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who receives a message saying, "You're dead; we know where you live; we'll get you"; and Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO), whose staffer is told by a caller, "Better hope I don't run into you in a dark alley with a knife, a club or a gun." House Minority Leader John Boehner, speaking about Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH), says he "may be a dead man."

March 23, 2010—After Mike Troxel of the Lynchburg Tea Party and Nigel Coleman of the Danville Tea Party post the home address of the brother of Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) and urge supporters to "drop by," someone deliberately cuts a propane gas line at the house. Rep. Perriello is targeted by the Tea Party activists because of his vote in favor of health care reform. Perriello's brother and his wife have four children under the age of eight.

July 3, 2010—Joyce Kaufman, a conservative radio host on WFTL in Florida, tells a crowd of supporters at a Fort Lauderdale Tea Party event, “I am convinced that the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendments rights was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will..."

July 11, 2010—Supporters of Tea Party candidate Joe Miller openly carry assault rifles and handguns during a community parade in Eagle River and Chugiak, Alaska, while young children march alongside them. Miller, who is running against Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary, was endorsed by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who described him as a “true Commonsense Constitutional Conservative.”

October 21, 2010—Pastor Stephen Broden, the Republican candidate for U.S. Representative in Texas' 30th Congressional District, tells WFAA-TV in Dallas that the violent overthrow of the government is an "option" that remains "on the table." "Our nation was founded on violence," states Broden. "I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms."

Read through the rest for dozens of examples of unhinged individuals resorting to exactly the kind of direct violence and destruction these people are calling for. That authorities have been able to put a stop to most of these murderous plots is something for which everyone can be thankful. But it is impossible to ignore the total irresponsibility inherent in the promotion of a point of view that directly advocates the insertion of violence into the political process. When this message is constantly peddled by people who command wide media audiences, when opposition to public policy takes the form of the open encouragement of armed confrontation between citizens and their government, when the flames of fear and suspicion are openly fanned by public figures - does it really come as a surprise that unbalanced members of the public choose to act on the basis of what they are being told?

The American right is crafting a very explicit message to the effect that it is OK to consider using firearms against elected officials. And now somebody has done just that. Whatever the particulars of Jared Loughner's ideological alignment or mental condition, it is completely appropriate to lay blame on right-wing agitators for fostering and encouraging a cultural environment that gives explicit sanction to his actions. Disgusting, shameful, and now lethal.

And I also have to ask...why not a single post when an avowed liberal starts shooting up a school board meeting in FL but everyone wants to pile on this guy? Odd.

I've answered your question: given the context of right-wing political discourse in your country, there's really nothing odd about it at all. Now perhaps you'll answer mine: given the events in Tucson, is it appropriate for the Tea Party and other right-wing American political elements to continue advocating the introduction of violence to the political process? Or is it maybe time to cool down on all this Second Amendment bullshit before more children end up on the receiving end of some lunatic's bullets?

[kaiser soze]

I am MUCH different than Beck and Limbaugh - I don't get paid to broadcast HATE. Those guys have said some seriously fucked up shit in comparison to what I say....Poisoning Pelosi?!?? Come ON!

Yeah I may be passionate and yes of course I get my sources but in my defense I have never once considered using a gun as an accessory of influence. Nor have I called for a lynching of anyone I don't agree with. I have never called on people to damage property or participate in threatening correspondence.

:rolleyes:

So I guess travesty the left should just roll over and die? Personally I don't think the left has been hard enough on the right's radicalization as of late and this (regardless of influence or not) is going to change that.

Like I said, the Congresswoman has been threatened/attacked in the past - were those just random occurrences as well?

So if people are so proud to carry guns in Arizona, how come not a single person shot this guy?!

Should those who allowed this guy to get the gun be responsible? Absolutely - that is their job!

[Sir SkratchaLot]

Being a pretty left leaning person myself, even I think it's a bit much to blame Palin, the Tea Party, etc. for this guy's actions. But it would be foolish to ignore the obvious connections to their rhetoric and what happened. Regardless of whether that sort of talk directly causes idoits and crazies to go shoot people, that sort of talk is not productive. We've had well over 2 years now where people have been encouraged to vent their anger in problematic ways. It's entirely irresponsible. So when you see these idots stepping on people's heads, and anti-government crazies shooting up represented officials, it's not a huge jump in logic to say "hey people, maybe you should think about what you're saying and doing here." It's not that difficult to get an angry person to assault someone. The wise person would de-escalate the situation, but it seems that certain politicians and talking heads find it avangageous to fuel the fire. Now they want to distance themselves. Hmmmmmmm.

That being said, this dude was disturbed. He was smoking a lot a herb too and it would be just as easy to blame weed for the killings. But just because it's unfair to put all the blame on Palin for driving this guy to shoot people up doesn't mean its unfair to call her and the Tea Party on their militant bullshit when something like this happens.

[travesty]

I am MUCH different than Beck and Limbaugh - I don't get paid to broadcast HATE.
No one listens to Leftie comentators anyway. Ask MSNBC.

So I guess travesty the left should just roll over and die?
Ideally, but it won't be that easy.

Personally I don't think the left has been hard enough on the right's radicalization as of late and this (regardless of influence or not) is going to change that.
Well I tend to believe that the right is finally starting to address the radicalization of the left, and it seems America as a whole is fed up with it as well. If you continue to think Tea Partiers are "radical" you're really going to hate the next decade or so.

Like I said, the Congresswoman has been threatened/attacked in the past - were those just random occurrences as well?
Possibly. show me a US representative or Senator in a contentous district who hasn't had a threat or two.

So if people are so proud to carry guns in Arizona, how come not a single person shot this guy?!
It was a Democrat rally...duh! Maybe they should have thrown patchouli and healing crystals and the perp. That raises a good point that I think maybe this was more a crime of opportunity than aimed at any one politician due to her views. How many chances do people get to speak with representatives in a situation so uncontrolled and with so little security? In the end it may have had nothing to do with her particular views and more that general fact that she was a well known person and he had easy access to her and her schedule. Only the a-hole in custody can answer that and it seems like he ain't talking right now.

Should those who allowed this guy to get the gun be responsible? Absolutely - that is their job!
Should car salesmen be responsible for car accidents? Don't be stupid. Selling a gun to someone who passes the background check is not illegal.

SchmeltzNow perhaps you'll answer mine: given the events in Tucson, is it appropriate for the Tea Party and other right-wing American political elements to continue advocating the introduction of violence to the political process? Or is it maybe time to cool down on all this Second Amendment bullshit before more children end up on the receiving end of some lunatic's bullets?
Yes. It's time for BOTH sides to ratchet it down a bit. To say that the advocation of violence is only coming from the right is incredibly short sighted. Both sides are escalating this shit because both sides stand to gain politically when shit like this happens. We lose. Why can't people repsect each other anymore? To say this is all coming entirely from the right just shows that you are also lacking respect for others and unwilling to accept that it's not a one sided problem.

That is and always has been my point with most of my posts on this board. I'm not here to defend the fucked up shit coming out of right wing politics these days. I'm just making sure y'all know that the exact same stupid shit is coming from the left. Political views are being sold to us everyday on a 24 hour cycle. Stop buying the shit these cunts are selling!! The more you buy into one side or the other and start letting it drive your perception of the "other guy", the more screwed we all are. There are no "other guys" folks, we're all here together.... pass the patchouli.:D

[kaiser soze]

No one listens to Leftie comentators anyway. Ask MSNBC.


Should car salesmen be responsible for car accidents? Don't be stupid. Selling a gun to someone who passes the background check is not illegal.



Those conducting the background check yes - the salesman no, but he damn well better be interviewed. Could they have knowingly sold a gun to someone exhibiting erratic behavior....as their hero would say "You betcha!"

[Whatitis]

So if people are so proud to carry guns in Arizona, how come not a single person shot this guy?!

This thought crossed my mind as well. I have quite a few friends I visit that live in Tucson and Phoenix areas and I must admit the first time I walked in a grocery store there I was behind a dude that had a .357 magnum holstered on his side and even as a gun owner it felt odd.

[kaiser soze]

This thought crossed my mind as well. I have quite a few friends I visit that live in Tucson and Phoenix areas and I must admit the first time I walked in a grocery store there I was behind a dude that had a .357 magnum holstered on his side and even as a gun owner it felt odd.

I thought that was the whole premise of carrying a weapon - to stop someone from killing you or others. Seeing that the 2nd Amendment didn't save any lives, thank God an unarmed 61 year old woman did.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8249869/Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-61-year-old-woman-emerges-as-hero.html

[BoggleKing]

I don't think there is any "pulling through" on a coma. She is on a respirator. I can only give her my positive thoughts and vibes. It is shame cause there were plenty of warning signs with this shooter. Sad to live in a country where people shoot each other over their beliefs.. oh, wait, I thought this way Afghanistan.

[travesty]

Those conducting the background check yes - the salesman no, but he damn well better be interviewed. Could they have knowingly sold a gun to someone exhibiting erratic behavior....as their hero would say "You betcha!"

I'm actually with you on this 100%. As a (multiple) gun owner, enthusiast and champion of the 2nd ammendment I also favor logical gun control and keeping them out of the hands of whack jobs. The problem is not that the laws aren't restrictive enough (they are) it's that they aren't carried out as well as they should, or could, be with some diligence. Even more than the problems with the whole background check is the problems with the courts in general and the difficulty in getting covicts listed in a manner that allows the background check to work as it should. This is the same way a suspected terrorist on the no fly list can walk right on a transatlantic flight to the US. From top to bottom the justice system and background checks are an imperfect system executed poorly. Some will obviously rally for more gun laws and we'll probably get them but as long as they're not enforced to thier potential, stuff like this will continue to happen.

Using fake driver's licenses bearing fictitious names, investigators with the Government Accountability Office had a 100% success rate buying firearms in five states that met the minimum requirements of the federal background check system.[87] [88] A 2001 report of this investigation states that the federal background check system "does not positively identify purchasers of firearms," and thus, people using fake IDs are not flagged by the system.[89]

If this is happening, what good will it do to have more laws?

Some interesting gun control stats (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp) if you're interested.

[Schmeltz]

Schmeltz
To say that the advocation of violence is only coming from the right is incredibly short sighted. Both sides are escalating this shit

Where? Show me. I'm not buying that without some direct evidence to support it. I don't hear a whole lot about insurgent Communist militias in America. The growth of right-wing anti-government extremism in the USA is, however, a clear and present phenomenon. Again, check the link I posted:


April 7, 2009—The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis releases an assessment of right wing extremism in the United States. The Department notes that “the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” Recalling the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, the Department speculates, “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

May 2009—Data released by the U.S. Marshals Service indicates that threats to the nation's judges and prosecutors have more than doubled in the past six years, from 592 in 2003 to 1,278 in 2008. Federal officials blame a number of parties, including the "sovereign citizen" movement—an unorganized grouping of tax protesters, white supremacists, and others who don't respect federal authority.


If you can come up with anything even remotely comparable from the progressive left, I'd like to read it. There is no left-wing parallel to the Tea Party's direct appeal to the violent use of firearms as a legitimate part of the political process as documented in that link. None. This isn't the Weather Underground here - these are mainstream political candidates directly advocating the targeting of their electoral opponents and actively encouraging armed intervention against the government, courting extremist elements in American society in the name of a warped and perverted vision of political freedom. If you imagine that something similar exists on the left, then I expect you to support that position as I have supported mine. Or can you not find anything from Al Gore about how the tree of liberty has to be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots and nine-year-old children?

According to these Tea Party folks all Jared Loughner has done is to take the next step in actually committing the murderous violence they bandy around as a genuine facet of the American democratic process. Their cavalier promotion of violence against elected officials has cost them their right to criticize this horrible tragedy. This is what it actually looks like when people strap on guns and go out to stand up to the big bad gummint - dead kids and seniors on the pavement. If the Tea Party and all the other gun-crazy right-wingers don't sober up and change their tune after this it will only further prove just what a disgrace they are, to the USA and to humanity in general. Absolutely disgusting.

[kaiser soze]

Better tone it down schmeltz - you don't want to be compared to Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, or Palin

wait, what am I saying!! They're just little pods of benevolence for peace and harmony.

:rolleyes:

PEOPLE ARE DEAD AND SUFFERING and they were powdering each others asses today. classy

[travesty]

Dylan Ratigan advocating Violent revolution on MSNBCHere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYD8SShKbnk)

Lefty whack job and Aspen Bomber James Chester Blanning;
DO NOT FUCK WITH US OR THERE WILL BE MASS DEATH LIKE WE HAVE ALL BEEN PART OF OVER IN THAT FUCKING QUICKSAND TRAP THAT ROVE AND CHANEY'S MONKEY BUSH PUT US INTO WHERE SO MANY OF OUR SOUL MATES AND BROTHERS DIED VERY HORRIBLE DEATHS.


Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bourgeois/obama-better-start-breaki_b_461873.html) From HuffPo

Here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/06/biden-says-hell-strangle-republicans/) from Biden

Here (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/07/news/la-pn-obama-base-20101008) from Obama

Maps (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647) with Bullseye on Republican candidates displaying each as "Targeted" from the DCCC and DLC before Palin had her map.

Begala (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/360290/september-28-2010/left-behind---paul-begala) wants to smack Boehner upside his head with a shovel and rouse his troops to anger

Rep. Kanjorski (D) says FL governor Rick Scott (R) should be put against a wall and shot. (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/ex-rep-paul-kanjorski-d-pa-fla-gov-rick-scott-they-ought-put-him-)

Lefty whack job Amy Bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_University_of_Alabama_in_Huntsville_shooting) gaffles coworkers killing three and wouding three.

Want more? This is easy.

I haven't even mentioned that the President and the previous congress was willing to mishandle legislation on some of the most devisive topics possible one after another. Like it or not, that ain't helping and you know it.

[Schmeltz]

The reason it's "easy" is because none of those links even come close to the level of malice or direct, obvious threats of armed violence contained in mine. I have to wonder, in fact, if you even checked them out yourself.

Before anybody else wastes any time with this crap: Dylan Ratigan's remarks are a lead-in to an interview with a political cartoonist and in fact do not amount to agitation for violence at all. Joe Biden makes explicitly clear that his remarks are a figure of speech, and it's patently obvious that Obama's remarks about hand-to-hand combat are the same. Another of your links is from a satirical comedy show. And I have no idea what Amy Bishop has to do with this conversation, as there is no political element to that article whatsoever. In fact the only relevant link you put up involves Kanjorski's remark, and even that falls far short of the kind of direct exhortation to voters to personally exercise their Second Amendment rights that seems to make up a substantial portion of the Tea Party's platform.

Comparing obvious metaphors and satirical comedy (not to mention articles completely irrelevant to the conversation) to the sort of material I posted amounts to a pretty sorry effort, travesty. I don't think the Department of Homeland Security is going to be releasing any reports on the danger constituted by the Colbert Report. If you're not willing to have a serious conversation about a serious subject then why bother posting at all?

[TimDoolan]

The 9/11 connection freaks me out. Bookends of horror.

[travesty]

So quick to forget the constant, media driven hate spewed at Bush (http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html) and Cheney just a few years back aren't you schmeltz?

In the FBI's 1996 report on terrorism in the U.S., the bureau mentions both right-wing and left-wing terrorists, but notes: "Over the last three decades, leftist-oriented extremist groups posed the predominant domestic terrorist threat in the United States."

The report went on to state that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bureau's success in breaking up some of those groups had reduced the threat. But within five years the assessment was different. In its official terrorism report for 2000/2001, the FBI singled out environmental radicals as a major source of domestic terrorism, but did not mention right-wing groups at all.

Are these reports skewed to suit the current administration's agenda? More than likely.

Katherine Crabill= Kanjorski

Otero Rally = any recent immigration rally like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDlutO0KK7g&feature=related) where a participant said that immigrants were going to murder americans with shovels and axes.
Or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydD07wyW1v4) one where revolucion propoganda and newspapers titled "The Militant" were handed out.

Alabama militia violence= 2008 RNC bombers (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/leftwing_extremist_plot_to_bom.asp) and organized protestors that damaged many businesses.

Death threats to representatives from right wingers= threats (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=249673) from left (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxVVhF3jQis) wingers here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/15/mccain-received-death-thr_n_60649.html) here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Odn1cH6rlR8)
Gas line= No evidence of who perpetrated this or why...try again.

Conservative radio host saying bullets will work if ballots don't = Ratigan saying violent revolution is an option whose time has come on national TV or Mike Malloy having violence fantasies (http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/11/liberal-host-discloses-violence.html) against Perino and the Bushes or lynching (http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/12/mike-malloy-calls-for-violence-against.html) Matt Drudge.

Joe Miller supporters carry guns at a rally= Black panthers brandish clubs at polling place and bring assault rifles to RNC protest (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/08/18/media-barely-noticed-legal-gun-brandishing-leftist-black-panthers-2000) in 2000

Candidate Broden= Claire McCaskill (D) calling for americans to "pick up pitchforks" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzZzDAhuKoE&feature=player_embedded)

Not to mention Obama saying the Dems were going to "bring a gun to a knife fight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzZzDAhuKoE&feature=player_embedded)"

Or the fact that the DailyKos had a map with the same crosshairs on Giffords for being a bluedog.

If you want to continue to believe that violence and violent rhetoric only comes from the right then you have some serious blinders on.

[kaiser soze]

oh those are just Right Wing threats to bush :rolleyes:

all kidding aside - I will never condone that kind of depravity towards anyone. When I see protesters on both sides using these kind of tactics (including vandalism) I become sincerely disgusted and upset that my fellow citizens have to resort to primitive and destructive ways of engaging each other - I do believe in the rule of law and have always called for only that.

Granted we have our bubble here and at times we digress from our intellects, but for the most part I believe the discourse here is still relatively sane (and at times laughable) compared to the crap we've seen about the country.

Now onto my thoughts on thought crime. We know it exists, we know our gov't has no choice but to pay attention to people making noise, and we know that some of the most dangerous manifestos have gone unheard with horrific results. How do we as citizens balance our rights of free speech while realizing speech often times is the direct influence of negative action.

[Turchinator]

The 9/11 connection freaks me out. Bookends of horror.

Westboro Baptist "Church" will protest her funeral.

[travesty]

Now onto my thoughts on thought crime. We know it exists, we know our gov't has no choice but to pay attention to people making noise, and we know that some of the most dangerous manifestos have gone unheard with horrific results. How do we as citizens balance our rights of free speech while realizing speech often times is the direct influence of negative action.

That a tough line to draw isn't it? Since I err more on the side of a stricter interpretation of the consitution I would say that the intent of most of what it lays out assumes abuses will be committed on the fringe of each right (as in bill of rights, not republican right). The right to free speech will have to tolerate pornography and the right to bear arms will have to tolerate some homicides committed with guns, protection from unreasonable search and seizure will have to tolerate TSA pat downs etc. etc. Only Americans themselves ultimately decide how much of each "right" they are willing to give up for some other benefit. Like I said, I'm more willing to put up with less restrictions on all "rights" than some people are and I hate relinquishing any of them in the name of "safety".

When it comes to free speech I lean waaaaayyyyyy to the side that says the freer the better. If people are truly inciting violent actions and it can be proven in a court of law, then they should be arrested and prosecuted. If not then just tell them to fuck off and quit listening. My issues come when people try and silence others under the premise that thier audience is too stupid to differentiate between a "figure of speech" (usually spoken by a Democrat) and "violent, hate mongering calls to violence" (usually spoken by a Republican) right? Censorship of speech is outrageous in any form. Censorship of political oponents is just as egregious. Censorship of actions is perfectly reasonable. It's not that we need more censorship of each other's speech, it's that we need more respect for what each other are saying.

[travesty]

Here's another great one Schmeltz...
John Kerry (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/10/bill_maher_with.html) saying he could have gone the white house and killed bush instead of going on vacation.

Everyone thinks that's just comedy, har har.

[Dorothy Wood]

I think it's premature to play the blame game. obviously everyone wants to be able to point to a specific reason, but so far all we know is that the shooter was a troubled young man who had issues with the government and free speech. he did have a history of contact with Giffords, and this may have just been a case of personal obsession.


as for the violent rhetoric, I think it's immature coming from either side. I'm really sick of politicians speaking in metaphors of any kind. it's completely frustrating.

it's hard to understand why people commit acts of mass murder. I'm glad that he's still alive, so he can offer at least some explanation at some point, even though he's not talking now.

[kaiser soze]

In comparison to the photos first provided - this guy looks pure evil - how will get him to talk who knows, his family was trying to barricade themselves in their house.

Beyond the monstrosity of this crime, I am amazed by the strength of the parents of Christina Green to talk about her life and death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXZOGNhw6p8&feature=player_embedded#!

:(

[Schmeltz]

That's a little better, travesty, thanks for putting some effort in. But you're still missing the salient points here. The first involves the scale of the right wing's efforts to bring extremist ideology into the mainstream of political discourse. I have yet to see an example of a left-wing parallel to the Tea Party, a nationwide movement within a well-established (if not dominant) national political party. This is because there isn't one. There is no widespread "grassroots" movement within the Democrats or any other American national political organization that is calling so vocally or agitating so widely in favour of the principle of violence as an inherent part of the formal political process. Your attempt to cite leftist equivalents to the right-wing examples I provided ignores the common element woven through my information, which is the affiliation to the Tea Party, the "sovereign citizen" ideology, and the widespread, deeply entrenched, officially sanctioned apparatus of the right wing at the national level.

The second point you're missing involves the depth of the right wing's appeal to violence as a legitimate part of political discourse. The link I put up paints a picture of a consistent right-wing appeal to the USA's founding document (the Constitution) and quasi-mythic cultural origins (ie the Tea Party itself, which invokes an event enshrined in the country's collective national consciousness). The links you provided do not depict left-wing agitators or extremists fanning the flames of extremist discourse through the appropriation of this fundamental cultural imagery and its association with violent armed confrontation, they're almost exclusively examples of isolated media soundbytes or (again) metaphoric language that falls far short of the direct, impassioned appeals to fundamental elements of American culture characteristic of the rhetoric on the extreme right.

The scattered incidents of provocative left-wing speech you provided don't amount to nearly the same sort of aggregate discursive political monolith that the Tea Party represents, and you don’t see Alec Baldwin or the Black Panthers waving the Constitution and invoking the Founding Fathers to justify their distasteful behaviour. You have yet to demonstrate that there is a left-wing equivalent to either the national scale or the cultural depth of the virulent appeal to violence that has come to dominate right-wing political discourse in America in the last few years. And speaking of chronology, there was no Tea Party in 1996, nor is it relevant to mention reports from ten years ago in the context of this discussion. American (and indeed global) politics was a very different animal pre-9/11. We're talking about what's going on now, not a decade ago. The stats in my link are from less than two years ago. How does the FBI feel about left- and right-wing extremism now, I wonder?

I'll concede that extremist invective is always harmful to political discourse regardless of its point of origin on the political spectrum. You’re not wrong about that. But in our time, now, it's the right wing who bears the brunt of responsibility for its escalation to a truly dangerous level. It's to be hoped that the tragedy in Tucson would prompt a rethinking of the scale and depth to which the right has magnified its rhetoric of violence and calls for armed confrontation, but watching you try to water down the question of responsibility like this makes me doubt that any such owning up is in the offing. For what it’s worth, maybe the right-wing gun nuts could take a page from Paul Begala ( http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/paul_begala_i_regret_joking_ab.html), who you referenced before:


Begala relates that a few months back, he joked on the Stephen Colbert show that Dems should smack John Boehner with a shovel "upside his orange head." But he now says he shouldn't have said any such thing.
"That was wrong -- now I really regret it," Begala says. "Now that I think about it in a different context, I think, `That wasn't very funny."
"Any person who has a megaphone also has an obligation to show some judgment," Begala continued.
Begala marveled at the angry and defensive reaction on the right to those who have been making the same point. This is particularly odd, given that some conservatives have been going a lot farther than Begala did with his shovel joke, talking up the possibility of armed revolution and hinting at Barack Obama's illegitimacy as president.


My issues come when people try and silence others under the premise that thier audience is too stupid to differentiate between a "figure of speech" and "violent, hate mongering calls to violence"

And yet the difference is real. You can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, and the right to free speech comes with the obligation to use it responsibly (and I know how you conservatives like to think you’ve got a monopoly on the sense of duty and obligation). In the wake of Jared Loughner’s murderous spree in Tucson, it is vividly clear that the type of extremist rhetoric that has come to define the American right wing’s opposition to government is entirely inappropriate. Will they have the spine to tone it down, or will they hijack the victim card and cry foul about their “right” to invoke violence against their opponents? True colours will be flying soon, if they haven’t been hoisted already.

[travesty]

I hear what your saying schmeltz and again, I'm not here to defend right wing vitriol. The main point that you are missing is that none of this has anything to do with Loughner (that we know of), In fact most reports now are saying that he was a Dem who even did some work for Giffords at one point. As I said before it seems to be less and less politically motivated as more information surfaces.

Democrats only wish they could get a groundswell like the tea party going. They can't and it's pissing them off. The fact remains that tying any of this directly to the tea party is near impossible. The is no formal hierarchy, platform or agenda. It's all still so nebulous. Yes it is getting more and more defined and as it does I think you'll see it continue to sanitize itself but for now its just a hodge podge of all manner of folks who disagree with where the country is headed. When you get that many folks together, some of them are going to be a-holes and whackos and those who want result more quickly than can rationally be acheived. Anybody can say they are a part of the "Tea Party" and then do something stupid. There is no formal membership regimen. Again, I am not defending them. But blaming the "Tea Party" as an entity seems like something the Dems are selling, and you're buying even though the evidence really isn't there

[saz]

Democrats only wish they could get a groundswell like the tea party going. They can't and it's pissing them off.

a groundswell may just occur if obama continues to cater and kiss wall street ass, while extending his middle finger to his base who got him elected. i won't be surprised if there are four presidential candidates in 2012.

[saz]

:(


Glock Pistol Sales Surge in Aftermath of Arizona Shootings

By Michael Riley - Jan 11, 2011 5:23 PM ET
Bloomberg News (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/glock-pistol-sales-surge-in-aftermath-of-shooting-of-arizona-s-giffords.html)


After a Glock-wielding gunman killed six people at a Tucson shopping center on Jan. 8, Greg Wolff, the owner of two Arizona gun shops, told his manager to get ready for a stampede of new customers.

Wolff was right. Instead of hurting sales, the massacre had the $499 semi-automatic pistols -- popular with police, sport shooters and gangsters -- flying out the doors of his Glockmeister stores in Mesa and Phoenix.

“We’re at double our volume over what we usually do,” Wolff said two days after the shooting spree that also left 14 wounded, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who remains in critical condition.

A national debate over weaknesses in state and federal gun laws stirred by the shooting has stoked fears among gun buyers that stiffer restrictions may be coming from Congress, gun dealers say. The result is that a deadly demonstration of the weapon’s effectiveness has also fired up sales of handguns in Arizona and other states, according to federal law enforcement data.

“When something like this happens people get worried that the government is going to ban stuff,” Wolff said.

Arizona gun dealers say that among the biggest sellers over the past two days is the Glock 19 made by privately held Glock GmbH, based in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria, the model used in the shooting.

Sales Jump

One-day sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60 percent to 263 on Jan. 10 compared with 164 the corresponding Monday a year ago, the second-biggest increase of any state in the country, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation data.

Handgun sales rose 65 percent to 395 in Ohio; 16 percent to 672 in California; 38 percent to 348 in Illinois; and 33 percent to 206 in New York, the FBI data show. Sales increased nationally about 5 percent, to 7,906 guns.

Federally tracked gun sales, which are drawn from sales in gun stores that require a federal background check, also jumped following the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech, in which 32 people were killed.

“Whenever there is a huge event, especially when it’s close to home, people do tend to run out and buy something to protect their family,” said Don Gallardo, a manager at Arizona Shooter’s World in Phoenix, who said that the number of people signing up for the store’s concealed weapons class doubled over the weekend. Gallardo said he expects handgun sales to climb steadily throughout the week.



Nearly 50 Percent Of Mental Health Services Recipients In Giffords' County Were Dropped In 2010

Sam Stein
First Posted: 01/11/11 03:26 PM Updated: 01/11/11 04:28 PM
HuffPost Reporting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/pima-county-mental-health-services_n_807522.html)


WASHINGTON -- In the past year, Pima County, Ariz., where Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others were shot Saturday, has seen more than 45 percent of its mental health services recipients forced off the public rolls, a service advocate told The Huffington Post.

The deep cuts in treatment were protested strongly at the time, with opponents warning that they would result in a spike in suicide attempts, public disturbances, hospitalizations and brushes with the police. But according to Clarke Romans, executive director for southern Arizona's branch of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the state government ignored requests for relief, citing the need to implement strict budget controls.

Now, in the wake of this weekend's horrific shootings, reports on the seemingly crazed mental state of the alleged shooter -- who was not, apparently, enrolled in any public treatment program -- is leading politicians, reporters and activists to take a fresh look at the funding of mental health care.

Arizona didn't always lag in this department. As Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic noted, "a 2009 survey by the National Association for the Mentally Ill reported that, statewide, mental health services had actually improved over the previous three years, to the point where the organization bumped Arizona's grade from a "D+" to a "C.""

But, as Romans told The Huffington Post, 2010 was a difficult year, particularly in Pima County. Last January, 3,000 Pima residents were taken off the public mental health system's enrollment because a diagnosis found they were not actively displaying symptoms of a serious mental illness. On July 1, another 3,800 county residents saw their coverage slashed because they did not fall below the federal poverty level. They were still allowed to get generic medications, but lost their case manager, their doctor and access to group therapy, as well as transportation and housing subsidies.

Just how big a chunk of the population in need of care did this constitute? There were 15,000 people on the rolls at the beginning of the year, Romans said, but that may be only a fraction of the population in need of help.

"These people are now turned away from services they may have had for years, and unfortunately the rate of suicide attempts hospitalizations and law-enforcement encounters have all gone up," said Romans.

"So they have cut the budget on paper, in Phoenix, but they now expect the local community, like Tucson, to increase the police, the emergency room, the response to suicide attempts, incarcerations and hospital stays," he added, noting that these services are among the most expensive a local government can provide. "It's madness."

A call to the governor's office to both confirm Romans' assessment of the situation and seek further comment was not immediately returned. But a Democratic state Senate aide offered a similarly dire view of Arizona's mental health facilities, predicting that things will get worse.

"We are facing a budget deficit of epic proportions and we know that there are more cuts coming, there is just no way around it," the aide said. "We have to be vigilant in the way those cuts are made."

The hope, among Romans and other mental-health services advocates, is that Saturday's tragedy will make it easier to fend off the budget scalpel. Though it seems alleged shooter Jared Loughner was not cut from a state program or receive any type of public treatment, it seems fair to say that he should have.

And while money may be tight, the avenues for getting patients into care -- at least in Arizona -- are surprisingly open. According to a Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011007049.html) on Monday:

Under Arizona law, any one of Jared Lee Loughner's classmates or teachers at Pima Community College so concerned about his increasingly bizarre behavior could have contacted local officials and asked that he be evaluated for mental illness and potentially committed for psychiatric treatment.

[SKIP]

Arizona has one of the most expansive mental health laws in the country, allowing any person, concerned about the mental state of another to petition local authorities to have the person evaluated if they are a danger to themselves or others, if they are unable to care for themselves, or if they appear to be mentally ill but may not know it.

In other states, stricter mental health laws require that people must show that they are an imminent danger to themselves or others before they can be involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment.

[kaiser soze]

I wonder why the jump in sales?

Afraid of not having protection or afraid of losing their guns?

[saz]

the story referenced a potential fear of gun owners that congress will impose new restrictions, but of course the democrats probably won't do anything on the matter because they're such pussies. in fact:


Peter King, Leading Republican, To Introduce Strict Gun-Control Legislation

First Posted: 01/11/11 10:47 AM Updated: 01/11/11 04:39 PM
Ryan Grim l Elise Foley l Lucia Graves
HuffPost Reporting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/peter-king-strict-gun-control_n_807323.html)


Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html) of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/arizona-shooting-victims_n_806768.html#s221612&title=Judge_John_Roll), including the judge, and 14 wounded.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation's most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King's measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it.

"Yesterday everyone here joined in observing a moment of silence on behalf of the victims of the shooting, and today we come together to speak up for ways to prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future, by adopting commonsense fixes to some of our broken gun laws," Bloomberg said Tuesday. "Civil debate is important, and I've long spoken out in favor of more cooperation and less antagonism, but I think it's true that the more we learn, the more it becomes clear that this case is fundamentally about a mentally ill drug abuser who had access to guns and shouldn't have."

A spokesman for King wasn't immediately available for comment.

In 2009, Bloomberg's pro-gun-control organization specified 40 ways President Obama could rein in illegal gun use (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/blueprint) without passing any new legislation. At a press event in Manhattan on Tuesday, Bloomberg added three steps to the list, including revamping the system of federal background checks on gun buyers, sharing information between gun background check databases, and appointing a head of the federal law enforcement agency responsible for controlling gun crime (http://www.atf.gov/), which has operated without a director for almost five years.

"We simply can't afford to have ATF at less than full strength when so many gun murders are occurring," said Bloomberg. Every day 35 people are murdered at gunpoint in the U.S., according to (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts?s=1) the Brady Campaign website.

It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King's legislation to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary, would offer government officials the same protection.

Over on Capitol Hill, gun control advocates are planning a major push in response to Saturday's shootings. Freshmen Congress members, particularly Giffords's state colleagues, Arizona freshman Republicans David Schweikert and Paul Gosar, will be among the main targets of the lobby effort.

Gun controls advocates will push not only for the legislation announced by King, but also for a bill proposed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), which would limit the sale of high-capacity clips like the one (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/giffords-gun-clip-weapon-mass-destruction_n_807033.html) used by alleged shooter Jared Lee Loughner.

"The horrendously tragic circumstances involved in this event and that it involves a member of congress changes the dynamic a bit," Kristen Rand, legislative director for Violence Policy Center, told HuffPost. "There's a sense there's more momentum."

And yet, while it would seem like an ideal time to push for gun restrictions, given public outcry over the violence that took place in Tucson, Ariz. the National Rifle Association has, notably, abstained (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47401.html) from lobbying against potential bills -- or even talking about how the shooting relates to gun policy at all.

The NRA has declined to comment for this and for other articles. "At this time anything other than prayers for the victims and their families would be inappropriate," an NRA spokesman said in a statement.

Gun control advocates, for their part, have used the NRA's silence to criticize them for ducking the political ramifications of Saturday's events.

"It's interesting that the NRA's only response whenever something like this happens is that it's an inappropriate time to discuss this," Chad Ramsey, federal legislative director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told HuffPost. "While prayers are important, it's really cold comfort to people who have been affected by gun violence, largely because of the NRA's policies that have led to our lax gun laws in this country."

Whether they formally lobby on Arizona response bills or not, the NRA's inherent clout on the Hill makes any effort to tighten gun laws an uphill battle. During the last session, a bill to close a gun sale loophole received 114 cosponsors -- a record for gun control legislation in the past decade -- but did not pass.

McCarthy told HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/gun-control-advocates-resigned-few-changes_n_806788.html) on Monday a larger-scale reduction on guns would likely die before reaching committee. "I know what I can get passed and I know what I can't get passed," she said. "And if I wanted to get something symbolic -- and we are going to reintroducing the assault-weapons ban and that's wonderful -- it won't go anywhere."

Still, gun control advocates are hopeful that the McCarthy bill, a smaller-scale effort at tightening gun restrictions, will win support from lawmakers. "What I hope is that this shooting will make people look at this issue with a new set of eyes," Ramsey said. "Anytime someone you know is affected by gun violence, it changes your perspective. Everybody knows Gabby Giffords, so I'm hoping they'll be able to see through the political rhetoric."

In the longer term, gun control advocates plan to lobby Congress to reinstate a ban on assault weapons that was first implemented in 1994 under President Bill Clinton and expired in 2004, Rand told HuffPost. The District of Columbia and six states, including California, already have the ban on their books, which Rand said might convince Republicans to vote for the legislation.

Gun restriction advocates also said they will lobby this session to close a gun sale loophole that allows private sales to occur without the screenings required for federally-licensed gun vendors. "Even if you have all the protections in the world on federally-licensed sellers, you're not going to be able to stop the next Loughner from buying a gun through a private seller at a gun show or on the internet or on the street," Everitt said.

[travesty]

a groundswell may just occur if obama continues to cater and kiss wall street ass, while extending his middle finger to his base who got him elected. i won't be surprised if there are four presidential candidates in 2012.

Wouldn't that be sweet?

[kaiser soze]

Gabrielle Giffords' Arizona shooting prompts resignations

http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html

Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety.


huh

[kaiser soze]

To be fair - Sarah Palin's statement (more like speech)

http://vimeo.com/18698532

my thoughts

shaking your head no when you're saying you care is a telling *tik* that many body language researchers would pick up on. I did.

try saying I care and shake your head no - how does that feel?

she makes me uneasy even when she's playing nice.

blood libel? Really?

p.s.

Jesus would have destroyed all guns

[kaiser soze]

Sarah Palin: 'Pundits should not manufacture a blood libel'

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/sarah-palin-responds-pundits-s.html

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R) released a statement Wednesday morning denouncing efforts to blame her for Saturday's Tucson shooting rampage. Her use of the controversial phrase "blood libel," which refers to anti-Semitic falsehoods dating back hundreds of years, has already inflamed her critics.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/sarah-palin-accuses-critics-blood-libel/

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prominent Republican Sarah Palin on Wednesday accused critics of "blood libel" by blaming her rhetoric for contributing to the shooting rampage in Tucson that killed six and wounded 14, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Please note that Giffords is Jewish.

Talk about being insensitive while being sensitive - Sarah didn't check her tone with her ghost writer again. If she understands what she said what is she insinuating? That the "Jewish" media is sacrificing her, the Christian?

stay classy

[Whatitis]

my thoughts

shaking your head no when you're saying you care is a telling *tik* that many body language researchers would pick up on. I did.

try saying I care and shake your head no - how does that feel?

I'm sure you saw her subliminally flipping off everyone during the video as well.

[kaiser soze]

Actually - Her speech today is a very obvious middle finger - it is insensitive in the fact that it is 4 days too late, it is accusatory without embracing any form of her personal responsibility in her words, it pre-empts the Presidents visit to Arizona, is offensive to those of Jewish and Christian faith, and disrespectful to the memory of the victims in this tragedy.

She has connections to an anti-government group and quit her term as governor of Alaska - There is nothing statesman nor potentially presidential about her and she's selfishly grasping for her 16th minute of fame.

[kaiser soze]

Words do hurt.

Pro-Israel Group: Palin Must Apologize for 'Blood Libel' Accusation

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/pro-israel-group-palin-must-apologize-for-blood-libel-accusation/69400/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#

J Street is saddened by Governor Palin's use of the term "blood libel."

The country's attention is rightfully focused on the memorial service for the victims of Saturday's shooting. Our prayers continue to be with those who are still fighting to recover and the families of the victims. The last thing the country needs now is for the rhetoric in the wake of this tragedy to return to where it was before.

We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term "blood libel" brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/12/palin-blood-libel

Of all the terms Palin could have used, from “defamation” to even “implicating me in murder,” why did Palin choose “blood libel”? As the conservative National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who says he “agree[s] entirely with…Palin’s, larger point,” notes, “Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood — usually from children — in their ritual.”

Sarah loves the taste of foot. She will never hold personal responsibility but everyone else should.

As a mother of a many children, why didn't she invoke her own feelings for her kids and conjure up some compassion and empathy for the little girl who lost her life rather than playing the victim of a "blood libel"!?!?

[Whatitis]

it is insensitive in the fact that it is 4 days too late,.........There is nothing statesman nor potentially presidential about her and she's selfishly grasping for her 16th minute of fame.

ROFL. You hold her accountable for not a prompt response a-la Bush/Katrina yet denounce her as just wanting fame. Such contradiction. It's hard to take anything other than one sided politics, and hatred, from you regarding Palin. Keep running with it. It's starting to get comical.

[kaiser soze]

hey, I don't mind making you laugh - it's unfortunate you can't see through Palin like many of us....which I find just as laughable.

Now back to Sarah's failure in sensitivity and altruism. She's the public figure, not I - so you can continue to be critical of my criticisms while failing to see that she's just doing a disservice to all involved in this.

[kaiser soze]

More Republicans resigning following Assassination attempt, guess they'd rather "retreat than reload" (http://tucsoncitizen.com/in-the-aggregate/2011/01/10/dont-retreat-instead-reload-sarah-palin-march-23-2010/).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/tucson-shooting-prompts-local.html

Miller is not alone. The newly-elected Dist. 20 Republican secretary, Sophia Johnson, first vice chairman Roger Dickinson, and former district spokesman Jeff Kolb, also quit.

This is disturbing - What are they afraid for? Their lives or their reputations? What are they afraid of? Words or a gun? I am shocked that these leaders/representatives would quit when they are most needed. Solidarity and Support for their fellow Americans is what they stood for and now they bail?

[saz]

joe scarborough calls out glenn beck again. scarborough is one of the very few conservatives who has done the decent thing, more than once (youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvifjMzn6BE).


Joe Scarborough, Glenn Beck Feud Erupts (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/joe-scarborough-glenn-beck-feud_n_807892.html)

First Posted: 01/12/11 10:00 AM Updated: 01/12/11 12:22 PM


A war of words erupted between Joe Scarborough and Glenn Beck on Tuesday, after Scarborough said that Beck was delivering a "vile message to Americans every day," and Beck said that Scarborough could never back up his assertions with facts.

Scarborough spoke on Tuesday's "Morning Joe." He was talking about his hope that amped-up media rhetoric would cool down in the wake of the Arizona shooting, and he used Beck as an example:

"I have a lot of family members that listen to him and watch him and are frightened by the things that he says every night with his chalkboard...my mom and a lot of other people like her that watch him every day start to believe if they hear every day, every day, that there's this guy in Washington D.C., this black guy that hates all white people and he wants to take your money . . . and he wants to destroy the country you grew up in. You feed that vile message to Americans every day, it's going to have an impact."

(video (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hes-frightening-my-mom-msnbc-joe-scarboroughs-glenn-beck-attackathon/))

Scarborough also said that Beck was a "nobody" until Fox News chief Roger Ailes brought him to his network. "If Roger Ailes decides to kick him out of Fox News, he'll go back to the Glenn Beck he was before," he said.

[kaiser soze]

but....but

They're just words?!!

It's all fun and games, Glenn Beck is just an entertainer - like Mickey Mouse

right?

Why did those Republicans resign if their opposition shouldn't be afraid of the rhetoric? If this guy didn't act upon what they've been spewing then what is there to be afraid of? No matter what is said it shouldn't have any affect - correct?

I'm confused about their actions (or lack thereof) prior to and after this attack. Keeping their post and providing support to their fellow politicians/citizens in the area would be the kindest political gesture.

[travesty]

So we're still gonna hang this on the right wing media? Even after more enlightening testimony today says loughner didn't even listen to political commentary? Pathetic.

You clowns are playing right into the ever present liberal plan to silence any opposition speach. It's been going on for decades. Trying to link this heinous act to speech is just an insidious attempt at censorship of the left's political adversaries. You are blindly carrying out the plan for these disgusting douchebags who would have any speech opposing thier own ideology shut out of our country.

There is no link to Beck, there is no link to Limbaugh, there is no link to Palin, there is no link to the Tea Party and there is no link to any other political commentator or group whether right or left. You are buying into a truckload full of bullshit that your lefty demagogues are pushing on you. They want you to HATE these people for what they think. Stop it. Stop being a pawn. Stop hating people. If this type of shit had really been an issue you would have brought it up after the FL School Board shooting, and after the Fort Hood shooting. You didn't because the media didn't and the media didn't because those shooters were identified lefties. This is some stupid manufactured bullshit to try and divert attention from the appalling reality of the left's policies of the last two years. The more they can divert your attention from thier lack of job creation and absurd deficits, the more you'll continue to buy into thier hack bull shit. It worked for a few weeks with the census worker scam so why not try it again right? Weak.

And as for Palin...sheeeeesh. The lib media has manufctured this dumb ass and given her every second of her 15 minutes of fame and they keep handing her more. Conservatives were content to let her fade away as a losing candidate and a quitter Gov but you moronic libs keep dragging her into shit she has nothing to do with, just for the fuck of it I guess. If you simpletons didn't let her rile you up like she does, no one would give a fuck about her on the right either and maybe she'd crawl back to Alaska and be gone for good.

[kaiser soze]

Unfortunately it was not the liberals who cast her into the spotlight. That was McCains fault. If they/she continue to pop up - and people know her credentials/influence is a farce expect further scrutiny.

Personally I think she has always been more of a liability than an asset for Conservatism. But it is so hard to ignore her follies. Like a bad joke I guess.

Now I'm not an idiot as well, she has done a very good job and building a base, a media image *cough* FOX *cough*, and always seems to pop up when shit goes down. Even Ailes told his minions to tone it down.

[saz]

So we're still gonna hang this on the right wing media? Even after more enlightening testimony today says loughner didn't even listen to political commentary? Pathetic.

You clowns are playing right into the ever present liberal plan to silence any opposition speach. It's been going on for decades. Trying to link this heinous act to speech is just an insidious attempt at censorship of the left's political adversaries. You are blindly carrying out the plan for these disgusting douchebags who would have any speech opposing thier own ideology shut out of our country.

There is no link to Beck, there is no link to Limbaugh, there is no link to Palin, there is no link to the Tea Party and there is no link to any other political commentator or group whether right or left. You are buying into a truckload full of bullshit that your lefty demagogues are pushing on you. They want you to HATE these people for what they think. Stop it. Stop being a pawn. Stop hating people. If this type of shit had really been an issue you would have brought it up after the FL School Board shooting, and after the Fort Hood shooting. You didn't because the media didn't and the media didn't because those shooters were identified lefties. This is some stupid manufactured bullshit to try and divert attention from the appalling reality of the left's policies of the last two years. The more they can divert your attention from thier lack of job creation and absurd deficits, the more you'll continue to buy into thier hack bull shit. It worked for a few weeks with the census worker scam so why not try it again right? Weak.

And as for Palin...sheeeeesh. The lib media has manufctured this dumb ass and given her every second of her 15 minutes of fame and they keep handing her more. Conservatives were content to let her fade away as a losing candidate and a quitter Gov but you moronic libs keep dragging her into shit she has nothing to do with, just for the fuck of it I guess. If you simpletons didn't let her rile you up like she does, no one would give a fuck about her on the right either and maybe she'd crawl back to Alaska and be gone for good.

everyone knows that loughner had no connection to the tea party movement.

a "liberal plan to silence any opposition speech"? the last time i checked, joe scarborough is a conservative and former republican congressman. he also comes across like a very sensible, likeable, practical and pragmatic individual.

anyways i think you're missing the point. opposition and free speech are great things. but turning your political opponents, who you may disagree with, and casting them as enemies of the state, ie newt gingrich claming that barack obama is just as much a threat to the united states as nazi germany and the soviet union once were, or, glenn beck claiming that obama is a racist and hates white people, is grossly irresponsible.

the majority understand that the beck's, palin's, limbaugh's, gingrich's, michael savage's et al are idiots who take no responsibility for the garbage they spew, and do not take them seriously. unfortuntaely, there are a lot of unbalanced (and armed) people out there who do take this kind of rhetoric seriously.

the kind of hate speech and despicable rhetoric, which contributes to an environment in which death threats etc occur, is the concern.

"liberal media"? i don't think so (http://blackfonzarelli.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/mediamoguls.jpg).

edit:


You are buying into a truckload full of bullshit that your lefty demagogues are pushing on you. They want you to HATE these people for what they think. Stop it. Stop being a pawn. Stop hating people.

that's ridiculous.


If this type of shit had really been an issue you would have brought it up after the FL School Board shooting, and after the Fort Hood shooting. You didn't because the media didn't and the media didn't because those shooters were identified lefties.

really? nidal malik hasan's mind was warped by religion. and clay duke was interested in anarchy. and even if duke had left-wing views, so what. the left isn't obsessed with guns. the left doesn't have a history of bombing abortion clinics, nor assassinating doctors who perform abortions. when you hear about a rural militia compound which is stacked with guns, machine guns etc, it doesn't usually involve a bunch of progressives or socialists. and the southern poverty law center's report on 75 foiled terrorist plots (http://www.alternet.org/rights/142123/terror_from_the_right%3A_75_plots%2C_conspiracies_ and_racist_rampages_since_oklahoma_city/) haven't involved socialists nor progressives.


This is some stupid manufactured bullshit to try and divert attention from the appalling reality of the left's policies of the last two years.

really? such as obama catering to wall street? a health insurance reform bill which caters to private health insurance companies? no public option, let alone an expansion of medicare for all? no break up of the "too big to fail" banks? no prosecution of the wall street criminals? the escalation of the war in afghanistan? no legalization of cannabis? no gun control? extending bush's tax cuts for the rich? no jobs program nor commission? no fdr type new deals?


The more they can divert your attention from thier lack of job creation and absurd deficits, the more you'll continue to buy into thier hack bull shit. It worked for a few weeks with the census worker scam so why not try it again right? Weak.

absurd deficits mind you from two pointless and unnecessary wars, borrowing trillions from china, wreckless tax cuts for the top 1%.


And as for Palin...sheeeeesh. The lib media has manufctured this dumb ass and given her every second of her 15 minutes of fame and they keep handing her more.

while i concur that the media shouldn't cover every brain fart facebook posting of palin's, it was john mccain who selected her as his vice-presidential running mate.


Conservatives were content to let her fade away as a losing candidate and a quitter Gov but you moronic libs keep dragging her into shit she has nothing to do with, just for the fuck of it I guess. If you simpletons didn't let her rile you up like she does, no one would give a fuck about her on the right either and maybe she'd crawl back to Alaska and be gone for good.


no the corporate media can't seem to let her go, and she's built up quite the following and appears to be very popular among the republican base. also, if palin doesn't want to be scrutinized, perhaps she should be more responsible with her rhetoric, and not constantly tell her followers to "re-load", and perhaps being a little bit more sensitive to jews regarding the "blood libel" remark.

anyways, the bottom line is that the republican party needs more moderates, or adults, who can silence and put the hysterical far right-wing idiots in their place.

[saz]

now this is what i'm talking about. pawlenty is spot on. (y)


Tim Pawlenty Criticizes Sarah Palin's Crosshairs

The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/tim-pawlenty-sarah-palin-crosshairs_n_807254.html) | Nick Wing

First Posted: 01-11-11 09:29 AM | Updated: 01-11-11 10:36 AM


Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty recently criticized Sarah Palin and her vilified campaign use of crosshair imagery (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html) to target legislators for unseating, saying he "wouldn't have done it."

Pawlenty, who seems to be in the midst of charging up for a potential presidential run, also gave a half-hearted defense of the former Alaska governor, telling The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/politics/11palin.html?_r=1) that "there's no indication at present that those cross hairs, Fox News, any particular commentator or show or set of remarks or person was a motivating factor in his thoughts." Despite this contention, however, he still seemed to think the illustration was a bad idea.

"I wouldn't have done it," Pawlenty said.

On Tuesday, Pawlenty repeated similar comments.

"It wouldn't have been my style to put the crosshairs on there, but there's no reason to believe it had anything to do with this mentally unstable person's rage," Pawlenty said Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," according to The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/137155-pawlenty-jabs-palin-over-2010-crosshairs-map). "There's a line there as it relates to basic civility, decency and respect."

In an interview (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gov-tim-pawlenty-sarah-palin-running-president/story?id=12556767) on ABC News's "Nightline" last week, Pawlenty also expressed cautious respect for Palin, calling her a "force of nature (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/07/tim-pawlenty-sarah-palin_n_805806.html)" on the political scene.

Despite claiming that Palin was an influential GOP force with the "tools" to run for President, Pawlenty also appeared to express some degree of regret that Palin, not he, had been chosen as John McCain's running mate.

[travesty]

Unfortunately it was not the liberals who cast her into the spotlight.
But it's the liberals who are keeping her there. Who was the first to drag her into this shit? The first reports of the shooting came out about 1pm on January 8th and within an hour and twenty minutes of that time you posted right here on the BBMB
Fucking Unbelievable - Assassinated

Quote:
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords died after being shot in the head at a public event on Saturday, Pima County, Ariz., sheriff's office confirms. The 40-year-old Democrat was outside a Tucson grocery store when a gunman ran up and began firing indiscriminately. The suspect was taken into police custody.

Please take a close look at this map - She was a target. Any correlation? Who knows - here is hoping law enforcement and the media are honest about this.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/sarahpac_0.jpg



an hour later you said;

Sarah Palin Facebook discussion with the PAC image including Gifford's name has been scrubbed

if she has nothing to hide than there's nothing to fear? - that's what bush said


So who REALLY brought her into this?? Hmmmmmm.

Personally I think she has always been more of a liability than an asset for Conservatism. But it is so hard to ignore her follies. Like a bad joke I guess.
I agree and that's why the left wants to keep her around. The right doesn't mind because she bugs the left so badly. I wish both sides would just stop it and let her scamper on.

And always seems to pop up when shit goes down. Even Ailes told his minions to tone it down.
Or just gets randomly blamed for shit she has nothing to do with and then has to publicly defend herself. If that's what you want ot call "popping up" then I guess you're right.

Sazbut turning your political opponents, who you may disagree with, and casting them as enemies of the state, ie newt gingrich claming that barack obama is just as much a threat to the united states as nazi germany and the soviet union once were, or, glenn beck claiming that obama is a racist and hates white people, is grossly irresponsible.

Agreed. So why is the left sactioning the demonization of Beck, Palin, et al as "violence breeders, hate mongers, and generally dangerous people" It is absolutely no different. Its all an attempt to silence free speech. No acts of violence have ever been linked to any of these people.

the majority understand that the beck's, palin's, limbaugh's, gingrich's, michael savage's et al are idiots who take no responsibility for the garbage they spew, and do not take them seriously. unfortuntaely, there are a lot of unbalanced (and armed) people out there who do take this kind of rhetoric seriously.

And I posit that there are also people on the left, maybe even people on this board who are buying into the left's campaign of censorship and hatred just as much. I hope no one here has committed any violence but we know there is plenty of vitriol and hatred aimed across the aisle posted here everyday. We also know that some recent killing sprees were comitted by known leftists. It's happening on both sides. All I'm saying is that I wish people would quit listening to anyone, on either side, who tells you to HATE others, regardless of the reason.

the kind of hate speech and despicable rhetoric, which contributes to an environment in which death threats etc occur, is the concern.
Agreed, and if any concrete evidence exists that one person's speech was directly responsible for a crime it should be prosecuted. Otherwise, that's how we roll in America. I don't want to live where I can't say I'm going to kicvk my opponents ass, or "slaughter" them at the polls, or "crucify" him on election day. Sorry, I like my world a little more interseting than the dumbed down, santized, politically correct, solid beige landsacpe the left would have us live in.

[saz]

Agreed. So why is the left sactioning the demonization of Beck, Palin, et al as "violence breeders, hate mongers, and generally dangerous people" It is absolutely no different. Its all attempt to silence free speech. No acts of violence have ever been linked to any of these people.

stop trying to spin this as "censorship". censorship involves legislation, and that's not what we're calling for here. both tim pawlenty and joe scarborough are calling for responsibility. and that's all we're calling for: responsibility. beck, palin et al have massive, massive followings. disagree with policy all you want and criticize the other side. but when you're framing the other side, your political opposition and fellow americans as enemies of the state, traitors, america haters, al qaeda sympathizers, whatever, it's despicable.

dwight eisenhower would have none of this. neither would george bush senior or ronald reagan. they understood/understand the concepts of civilty and class.


And I posit that there are also people on the left, maybe even people on this board who are buying into the left's campaign of censorship and hatred just as much.

i don't hate anyone for their political beliefs nor do i support censorship.


I hope no one here has committed any violence but we know there is plenty of vitriol and hatred across the aisle.

agreed. i've never been a fan of randi rhodes or rosie o'donnell.


In fact we know that some recent killing sprees were comitted by know leftists.

such as?


I don't want to live where I can't say I'm going to kicvk my opponents ass, or "slaughter" them at the polls, or "crucify" him on election day. Sorry, I like my world a little more interseting than the dumbed down, santized, politically correct, solid beige landsacpe the left would have us live in.

again, this isn't about some fantasy or ridiculous "landscape the left would have us live in". joe scarborough and tim pawlenty aren't progressives. and i don't see anything wrong with the examples you just cited. however, when you're in a position of authority or great prominence, such as palin and beck, or an elected official or legislator, you should not equate your political opponents as enemies of the state.

[Whatitis]

FEAR!!!

Quite ironic considering the political discourse since the Tucson event.

[kaiser soze]

And that's what has been preached for years from the people who undoubtedly have influenced a movement (Tea Party) - it is getting old and people are getting called out.

Even Rush Limbaugh himself said "Words Mean Things"

Is it brave to keep silent?

Is carrying a gun openly in public a sign of bravery? Strikes me as cowardly if a person fears they need to go that far. If you are brave you're willing to risk your life for the minimal likelihood of having to use a gun in your defense.

To mock the whole fear thing now while many conservatives have been selling it for years just proves that you didn't care of what they said until now. Thanks for joining the party.

[travesty]

Anyone else having trouble with the server here tonight? Annoying.

[travesty]

stop trying to spin this as "censorship". censorship involves legislation, and that's not what we're calling for here.
Oh no? What's this (http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3ief59b53cf621e16369792d159141d362?imw=Y) and this (http://patterico.com/2009/02/06/another-senator-calls-for-fairness-doctrine-hearings-you-know-the-ones-the-la-times-said-nobody-was-asking-for/) and this (http://news.cnet.com/Net-neutrality-or-Net-censorship/2010-1028_3-6097579.html) and this (http://http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/11/23/tolerance_sharpton_calls_on_fcc_to_censor_rush)

both tim pawlenty and joe scarborough are calling for responsibility. and that's all we're calling for: responsibility. beck, palin et al have massive, massive followings. disagree with policy all you want and criticize the other side. but when you're framing the other side, your political opposition and fellow americans as enemies of the state, traitors, america haters, al qaeda sympathizers, whatever, it's despicable.
And that's fine but it can't be a one way street. Framing an opponent as an enemy of the sate is no different than framing them as an enemy of the people, or an enemy of "the working man", "corporotist" or "on the side of the rich". The class envy, class hatred and class warfare the left foments every single day is no different. Period. The left sells "class struggle", the right sells "patriotic duty", if people would quit buying both we'd be just fine.

"Responsibility"-the state or fact of being responsible. What does that even mean in this context? What should Palin and Beck be responsible for? Does it mean they should be personally liable for speaking thier opinion? If so, should Howard Stern be responsible for people dying of AIDS because his show tells people how to have depraved, dirty sex? Should Click and Clack the car guys be responsible for people dying in car accidents because these guys talk on the radio to HUGE, possibly uneducated audiences and give incomplete advice on how to keep older, less safe cars on the road? That's preposterous.

Does Responsibility mean that they should CENSOR themselves and not speak thier minds? Careful here.

dwight eisenhower would have none of this. neither would george bush senior or ronald reagan. they understood/understand the concepts of civilty and class.
Agreed and its going to take a President strong enough to take the jabs and classy enough to condem those who throw the jabs to bring us all back together again. You and I both know Obama is not that guy and his words and actions are only making things worse. In fact I consider him the most devisive President of my lifetime.

i don't hate anyone for their political beliefs nor do i support censorship.
I know you don't. That wasn't "necessarily" targeted at you.

agreed. i've never been a fan of randi rhodes or rosie o'donnell. Or maddow, or olbermann, or {swallows barf...blechhhh} Ed Shultz or Neil Boortz or Mark Levin or any of those types.

such as?
According to his wife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uPsMKXlB4eQ), Clay Duke. According to family source (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1232943&format&page=1&listingType=Loc), Amy Bishop. And of course Ted Kaczynski, you know.. the Unabomber.

again, this isn't about some fantasy or ridiculous "landscape the left would have us live in". joe scarborough and tim pawlenty aren't progressives. and i don't see anything wrong with the examples you just cited. however, when you're in a position of authority or great prominence, such as palin and beck, or an elected official or legislator, you should not equate your political opponents as enemies of the state.
What authority do Palin and Beck have? Don't get me started on hateful, hateful left wing rants by people in "positions of prominence". I don't have time to post them all. I just don't see that much difference from today's climate and 4 years ago when the left was excoriating Bush and Cheney as "war criminals", "traitors", "killers" and "enemies of the state". Sorry. For fuck's sake they're still saying that shit.

Like I said, this turd swirls both ways and it's shameful. It's shameful that within 20 minutes of these people being KILLED, the left wing drum beat of "blame the right" wound up completely marginalizing these people in the name of political gain (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sanders-fundraises-arizona-murders_533487.html). WTF?

[travesty]

stop trying to spin this as "censorship". censorship involves legislation, and that's not what we're calling for here.
Oh no? What's this (http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3ief59b53cf621e16369792d159141d362?imw=Y) and this (http://patterico.com/2009/02/06/another-senator-calls-for-fairness-doctrine-hearings-you-know-the-ones-the-la-times-said-nobody-was-asking-for/) and this (http://news.cnet.com/Net-neutrality-or-Net-censorship/2010-1028_3-6097579.html) and this (http://http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/11/23/tolerance_sharpton_calls_on_fcc_to_censor_rush)

both tim pawlenty and joe scarborough are calling for responsibility. and that's all we're calling for: responsibility. beck, palin et al have massive, massive followings. disagree with policy all you want and criticize the other side. but when you're framing the other side, your political opposition and fellow americans as enemies of the state, traitors, america haters, al qaeda sympathizers, whatever, it's despicable.
And that's fine but it can't be a one way street. Framing an opponent as an enemy of the sate is no different than framing them as an enemy of the people, or an enemy of "the working man", "corporotist" or "on the side of the rich". The class envy, class hatred and class warfare the left foments every single day is no different. Period. The left sells "class struggle", the right sells "patriotic duty", if people would quit buying both we'd be just fine.

"Responsibility"-the state or fact of being responsible. What does that even mean in this context? What should Palin and Beck be responsible for? Does it mean they should be personally liable for speaking thier opinion? If so, should Howard Stern be responsible for people dying of AIDS because his show tells people how to have depraved, dirty sex? Should Click and Clack the car guys be responsible for people dying in car accidents because these guys talk on the radio to HUGE, possibly uneducated audiences and give incomplete advice on how to keep older, less safe cars on the road? That's preposterous.

Does Responsibility mean that they should CENSOR themselves and not speak thier minds? Careful here.

dwight eisenhower would have none of this. neither would george bush senior or ronald reagan. they understood/understand the concepts of civilty and class.
Agreed and its going to take a President strong enough to take the jabs and classy enough to condem those who throw the jabs to bring us all back together again. You and I both know Obama is not that guy and his words and actions are only making things worse. In fact I consider him the most devisive President of my lifetime.

i don't hate anyone for their political beliefs nor do i support censorship.
I know you don't. That wasn't "necessarily" targeted at you.

agreed. i've never been a fan of randi rhodes or rosie o'donnell. Or maddow, or olbermann, or {swallows barf...blechhhh} Ed Shultz or Neil Boortz or Mark Levin or any of those types.

such as?
According to his wife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uPsMKXlB4eQ), Clay Duke. According to family source (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1232943&format&page=1&listingType=Loc), Amy Bishop. And of course Ted Kaczynski, you know.. the Unabomber.

again, this isn't about some fantasy or ridiculous "landscape the left would have us live in". joe scarborough and tim pawlenty aren't progressives. and i don't see anything wrong with the examples you just cited. however, when you're in a position of authority or great prominence, such as palin and beck, or an elected official or legislator, you should not equate your political opponents as enemies of the state.
What authority do Palin and Beck have? Don't get me started on hateful, hateful left wing rants by people in "positions of prominence". I don't have time to post them all. I just don't see that much difference from today's climate and 4 years ago when the left was excoriating Bush and Cheney as "war criminals", "traitors", "killers" and "enemies of the state". Sorry. For fuck's sake they're still saying that shit.

Like I said, this turd swirls both ways and it's shameful. It's shameful that within 20 minutes of these people being KILLED, the left wing drum beat of "blame the right" wound up completely marginalizing these people in the name of political gain (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sanders-fundraises-arizona-murders_533487.html). WTF?

PS- Anyone else having trouble with the server tonight? Annoying.

[travesty]

stop trying to spin this as "censorship". censorship involves legislation, and that's not what we're calling for here.
Oh no? What's this (http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3ief59b53cf621e16369792d159141d362?imw=Y) and this (http://patterico.com/2009/02/06/another-senator-calls-for-fairness-doctrine-hearings-you-know-the-ones-the-la-times-said-nobody-was-asking-for/) and this (http://news.cnet.com/Net-neutrality-or-Net-censorship/2010-1028_3-6097579.html) and this (http://http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/11/23/tolerance_sharpton_calls_on_fcc_to_censor_rush)

both tim pawlenty and joe scarborough are calling for responsibility. and that's all we're calling for: responsibility. beck, palin et al have massive, massive followings. disagree with policy all you want and criticize the other side. but when you're framing the other side, your political opposition and fellow americans as enemies of the state, traitors, america haters, al qaeda sympathizers, whatever, it's despicable.
And that's fine but it can't be a one way street. Framing an opponent as an enemy of the sate is no different than framing them as an enemy of the people, or an enemy of "the working man", "corporotist" or "on the side of the rich". The class envy, class hatred and class warfare the left foments every single day is no different. Period. The left sells "class struggle", the right sells "patriotic duty", if people would quit buying both we'd be just fine.

"Responsibility"-the state or fact of being responsible. What does that even mean in this context? What should Palin and Beck be responsible for? Does it mean they should be personally liable for speaking thier opinion? If so, should Howard Stern be responsible for people dying of AIDS because his show tells people how to have depraved, dirty sex? Should Click and Clack the car guys be responsible for people dying in car accidents because these guys talk on the radio to HUGE, possibly uneducated audiences and give incomplete advice on how to keep older, less safe cars on the road? That's preposterous.

Does Responsibility mean that they should CENSOR themselves and not speak thier minds? Careful here.

dwight eisenhower would have none of this. neither would george bush senior or ronald reagan. they understood/understand the concepts of civilty and class.
Agreed and its going to take a President strong enough to take the jabs and classy enough to condem those who throw the jabs to bring us all back together again. You and I both know Obama is not that guy and his words and actions are only making things worse. In fact I consider him the most devisive President of my lifetime.

i don't hate anyone for their political beliefs nor do i support censorship.
I know you don't. That wasn't "necessarily" targeted at you.

agreed. i've never been a fan of randi rhodes or rosie o'donnell. Or maddow, or olbermann, or {swallows barf...blechhhh} Ed Shultz or Neil Boortz or Mark Levin or any of those types.

such as?
According to his wife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uPsMKXlB4eQ), Clay Duke. According to family source (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1232943&format&page=1&listingType=Loc), Amy Bishop. And of course Ted Kaczynski, you know.. the Unabomber.

again, this isn't about some fantasy or ridiculous "landscape the left would have us live in". joe scarborough and tim pawlenty aren't progressives. and i don't see anything wrong with the examples you just cited. however, when you're in a position of authority or great prominence, such as palin and beck, or an elected official or legislator, you should not equate your political opponents as enemies of the state.
What authority do Palin and Beck have? Don't get me started on hateful, hateful left wing rants by people in "positions of prominence". I don't have time to post them all. I just don't see that much difference from today's climate and 4 years ago when the left was excoriating Bush and Cheney as "war criminals", "traitors", "killers" and "enemies of the state". Sorry. For fuck's sake they're still saying that shit.

Like I said, this turd swirls both ways and it's shameful. It's shameful that within 20 minutes of these people being KILLED, the left wing drum beat of "blame the right" wound up completely marginalizing these people in the name of political gain. WTF?

[travesty]

While on the topic, Kudos to Obama for some of his comments tonight. They almost seem a little tongue-in-cheek given some of his previous remarks, but kudos for laying them out there anyway. Maybe he'll start living the way he tells us to.

[Schmeltz]

Yeah, server's been turning up the suck lately. Better now though.


And as for Palin...sheeeeesh. The lib media has manufctured this dumb ass


Now that's some silly bullshit. The liberal media did not give Palin a prominent commentary slot on FOX News. The liberal media did not give Palin a massive book deal (or write the book for her, although somebody obviously did) and speaking tour. Certainly it was no liberal who signed Sarah Palin up for her very own reality show. It's hard to believe that you could be so disingenuous as to pretend that Sarah Palin's media prominence has something to do with the left wing, but you continue to surprise at every turn.


Does Responsibility mean that they should CENSOR themselves and not speak thier minds?

YES. YES IT DOES. You've started to play this "censorship" card as a pretend trump to those of us advocating a return to basic decency from the right wing, but what you seem to be missing is that nobody here is calling for official censorship of anybody. I can't speak for anyone else but as I've repeatedly pointed out, the right has created a discursive edifice of unparalleled scale and depth in its exhortation of violent confrontation of your country's government, and as I've repeatedly pointed out, whether or not this type of barbaric rhetoric directly inspired Jared Lee Loughner (and it probably didn't) is beside the point. The point, and I'll say it again and again as long as you continue to deliberately ignore it, is that in the wake of this act of violence against a public official, it is time to dial this rhetoric down. That means Palin, Beck, the Tea Party leadership, and all the other gun-crazy Second Amendment fanatics need to exercise some god damned judgment before continuing to invoke the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as a means to rouse angry sentiment among a discontented citizenry with easy access to firearms. And yes, that means they need to censor themselves, and restrict their opposition (which nobody is saying is illegitimate or amoral) to a more fundamentally sensible form, just like people with a sense of common decency and basic civility don't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (to repeat myself once again).

The fact that Sarah Palin and her ilk are actively resisting a commonsense call for rationality and civility in the wake of this tragedy is nothing short of disgusting. So is your weak attempt to pretend that the left is somehow just as bad, especially in the face of the evidence I've presented to you. Clay Duke brought a gun to a school board that fired his wife. Amy Bishop brought a gun to a university that wouldn't give her tenure, or something. Jared Loughner brought a gun to a Congresswoman who had explicitly expressed her concern about the violent imagery associated with political opposition to her candidacy. If you can't pick out which of these things is not like the other, you need more help than you'll get on the BBMB.

[travesty]

Now that's some silly bullshit. The liberal media did not give Palin a prominent commentary slot on FOX News. The liberal media did not give Palin a massive book deal (or write the book for her, although somebody obviously did) and speaking tour. Certainly it was no liberal who signed Sarah Palin up for her very own reality show. It's hard to believe that you could be so disingenuous as to pretend that Sarah Palin's media prominence has something to do with the left wing
If the left wing would discontinue bringing up Palin's name on every single show, every single day she wouldn't be on Fox and no one would buy her books and they wouldn't care about her stupid reality show. Remember Jack Kemp? What did he do after he lost his bid for VP with Dole in '96....nothing! He fucking disappeared. You dumbasses did the same fucking thing with Limbaugh, then O'Reilly, then Beck and now her. You'd think you'd learn but I know that is asking a lot. The more you demonize these people the more money they make. Fucking quit it. You wonder why your liberal commentators have no ratings? It's because conservatives don't fucking care what they think so they don't talk about them. I'm watching Maddow right now and she just spent a full 15 minute segment on Palin. I'm sure Palin is laughing out loud. Lawrence O'Donnell is on now and has gotten through a full 45 minutes on Palin. Incredible.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is only irresponsible if there is no fire. If there is in fact a fire, then yelling "Fire" is compulsory. Your comparison is only applicable if there is no truth to what they are saying and in this case that is simly a matter of ideology. They truly beleive the theater is on fire. They see the flames and smell the smoke. You don't. So who gets to decide what is "decent" for everyone? You? Louis CK? The guy strung out on Heroine down on the tracks? Who? Determining what is "decent" and what isn't is CENSORSHIP bro. You Larry Flint and Tipper Gore ought to get together to discuss the better points of what you may want to allow others to say and not say when discussing our Bill of Rights. What I consider basic civility would probably be seem rather crude and offensive at Buckingham Palace. You are trying to define an individual perception for the masses. Are you gonna go all Potter Stewart on us and bust out how you "can't use words to describe decency but you know it when you see it"? Where were your calls for "decency" and comonsense when people were burning effigies of our last President and wearing t-shirts advocating his execution. Fucking Hipocrites the whole lot of you. Your standard of decency is one sided and that spells censorship.
You still haven't explained to me who the "Tea Party Leadership" is and when you do please let me know what violence they have committed on anyone.

The fact that Sarah Palin and her ilk are actively resisting a commonsense call for rationality and civility in the wake of this tragedy is nothing short of disgusting.
And it's woorking to keep her in the limelight. She is thanking you right now. People used to call Howard Stern "disgusting" now they call him "The King of All Media" as he signs his most recent $500M contract. If you keep validating her stupidy we may be calling her President one day. I think Sarah and her ilk are politely saying "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me". We do that often in America, in fact we founded this country like that.

So is your weak attempt to pretend that the left is somehow just as bad, especially in the face of the evidence I've presented to you. Clay Duke brought a gun to a school board that fired his wife. Amy Bishop brought a gun to a university that wouldn't give her tenure, or something. Jared Loughner brought a gun to a Congresswoman who had explicitly expressed her concern about the violent imagery associated with political opposition to her candidacy. If you can't pick out which of these things is not like the other, you need more help than you'll get on the BBMB
Really Schmeltz? I'd say its Clay Duke. He's the only one who didn't kill anyone else, by pure luck. Other than that, barring you pulling some pretty revealing motive for Loughner out of your ass, these events are very similar. Are you saying that school board members and university faculty are less relevant than a Congresswoman when it comes to gun violence? Really Schmeltz? Or are they just less valuable as political capital for your side? I guess we ought chastize all those Auburn football fans who pushed Amy Bishop over the edge with "Kill 'Bama" signs right?

You have presented no evidence of any crimes being committed by any of the people you reference. You have only presented a weak case of circumstantial evidence that they are in any way connected. You and your pals are calling for change that you are unwilling to make yourselves. Will you accept my definition of decency as guidelines for how you should act? If so then I think you should just blindly accept that I am right instead of Chris Matthews.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

Okay, wait, let's get this "censorship" thing correct before moving on.

Read the Constitution. Is says "CONGRESS shall make no law . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It doesn't say anything about "The liberal, jew run media can't abridge the freedom of speech." It doesn't say "Glenn Beck can't run his fat mouth". The first amendment protects us from the GOVERNMENT censoring us. Nobody (especially not the Government) is forcing anyone to stop saying anything. What's happening now is that people are making an argument that we should stop using irresponsible violent rhetoric. It's not censorship, or anything close to it. It's the opposite of censorship. If you say something stupid people have the right to call you can idiot for doing that, and you can try to defend your idoitic statement. The answer to free speech is more speech. That's the constitution at work. That's free speech, not censorship.

And, Travesty, I (sort of) agree with you until you go off on your crazy rants about the liberal left wing media conspiracy theories. If you want to talk about "censorship" the closest we actually came to actual censoship was in the post 9/11 wake when anybody who said something against the war was called unpatriotic, by the PRESIDENT, our congressmen and women, and our senators. And even that's not censorship, because nobody is MAKING anybody do anything.

I do think this is a good time to discuss all of this. Regardless of whether putting cross-hairs on that district caused this, is it really smart thing to do? Should we not speak out against that so that it doesn't have a disaterous impact in the future? Wouldn't it be better to PREVENT this sort of thing than just complain about it after it happens.

And it's important to point out that nobody is saying we should tone down the core ideas, the argument is that we should tone down the WAY we express those ideas. Nobody is saying you shouldn't be able to argue for gun rights, they're just saying that arguing for gun rights by putting cross-hairs on people who disagree with you is reckless.

I fully agree with Travesty that the left has taken advantage of the situation to attack its political enemies. I also think it's no different than what the right would do, and does do every single day on Fox news, talk radio, etc. It's really a wasted oportunity for us to actually have a meaningful discourse. There really isn't much professionalism left in our news media these days, and it's sad. This media scenario we're seeing now is exactly what happens when people use rhetoric, flawed logic, and predjudice to influence people instead of just reporting the damn news. Hopefully some of these assholes will figure out it's a bad idea to politicize EVERYTHING and censor themselves. Not because someone is making them doing it, but because what's going on now is irresposnible and dishonest.

[kaiser soze]

While on the topic, Kudos to Obama for some of his comments tonight. They almost seem a little tongue-in-cheek given some of his previous remarks, but kudos for laying them out there anyway. Maybe he'll start living the way he tells us to.

(y)

[Bob]

If the left wing would discontinue bringing up Palin's name on every single show, every single day she wouldn't be on Fox and no one would buy her books and they wouldn't care about her stupid reality show.

i don't want to pin her stardom entirely on liberals but i'll agree that they're not helping. every time a turd falls out of her mouth about blood libel or refudiation or whatever the media jumps all over it and there's a million blog posts complaining about it and a dozen CNN analysts going over her tweets and arguing about it and jesus christ just shut the fuck up about sarah palin, she won't go away if you keep doing this. she probably wouldn't go away anyway because people seem to like her for some stupid reason but you don't say the things she says without wanting the media and the blogosphere to EXPLODE IN CONTROVERSY so i don't understand why they won't stop doing it and thinking they're helping. her stupid blood libel thing is STILL in the top 3 stories on google news. i want to ignore her so badly but the media just makes it impossible

i will never forgive john mccain for unleashing her upon the world like this. completely irresponsible

of course the super frustrating thing is that you can't even talk about not talking about sarah palin without talking about her and adding to the problem. i guess all you can do is sit quietly and bite your tongue and just hope people take the hint to stop paying attention to her

[travesty]

Skatch if you see my posts there is a push for more censoring legislation happening. Net nuetrality was just enacted by the FCC and several Congresspeople continue to bandy about the idea of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

Look, I'm all for more civil, rational discourses, like I've said again and again I'm not here to defend the stupid shit people are doing out there. If Schemltz would have come in here and "we need more civility in our political discourse the way it's being handled by politicians is ugly. They make dangerous comments and some a-holes can misinterpret that" I would have simply said

Right on, I agree and I couldn't have said it better(y)(y)

But he came in here basically saying "it's all THOSE people's fault over there on the right, THEY are dangerous and THEY need to be held accountable. Stuff like this NEVER happens on the left, its purely a conservative problem." and that is, as I have proven, simply some BS that needs to be called out.

On Palin, as I watched MSNBC last night between Olbermann, Maddow and O'Donnell's shows Palin was the topic of discussion for a full 2 of the three hours. I'm sure Ed spent at least half his show on her too. She doesn't get that much face time on Fox in a week.

This was a local story here in NC you probably didn't hear about over the summer but check it out (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7469855). I guess they ought to be renaming the store because thier name and logo are "irresponsible" and probably contributed to this crime. Right?

Dem Bernie Sanders is already trying to Milk (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32079) this shooting for gain. How come no calls for "decency" here?

And how come no one even mentions the other victims of this shooting? I mean one was a judge and one was a child and four others were KILLED? Just asking. Like I said Giffords is the only one anybody can use for political gain because she's a Dem. A murdered Federal Judge just isn't newsworthy I guess. I guess that since he's a Republican, Bush appointee he doesn't matter much.

[kaiser soze]

if you're going to link to blog postings with this

The smoke from Jerod Loughner’s gun had not fully cleared the air in Phoenix, Arizona when heartless, lying, more violence-fomenting rhetoric was pouring out of the mouths of the ugly-minded, socio-communist liberal Democrats to see what political gain could be attained from a terribly sad and bitterly experienced set of six murders and many others wounded.

Don't expect us to understand where you're coming from, because it appears you aren't paying attention to the language that you are very much trying to quell. Yes - a fundraiser is in bad form (as with Boehner's RNC fundraiser visit last night)

I guess the author wasn't paying attention when Giuliani pulled his little $9.11 bit. :rolleyes:

I have noted some of the other victims in this thread, it is been difficult to come back to their stories after this thread has gotten tied up in this debate - and honestly I'm upset it has and I'm to blame as well.

[travesty]

WOW! Sorry about that link. Honesty I was lazy and grabbed the first link I saw without reading it. I heard the story on the news last night and just did a quick google this morning as I typed the rest of the last post. Mea culpa...bad source, really bad source.

I have noted some of the other victims in this thread, it is been difficult to come back to their stories after this thread has gotten tied up in this debate - and honestly I'm upset it has and I'm to blame as well.
Me too. Frankly I've said my peace about all of the other BS anyway. I got y'all's point, hopefully y'all got mine. Travesty out.

[Schmeltz]

If the left wing would discontinue bringing up Palin's name on every single show, every single day she wouldn't be on Fox and no one would buy her books and they wouldn't care about her stupid reality show.

That's ridiculous. Palin has a media presence because she has an active following among the politically conservative elements of the American public. It's not liberals who buy her books or watch her show or give her airtime - I have no idea where you're coming from with this. Are John Stewart and Stephen Colbert popular because conservatives can't stop talking about them? Is it conservatives who watch The Daily Show and buy John Stewart's books? Would The Daily Show go away if conservatives stopped paying attention to it? That would be the corollary to the argument you're making. It just doesn't make sense.

Determining what is "decent" and what isn't is CENSORSHIP bro.

No, preventing people from speaking and propounding points of view - silencing their voice altogether - would be censorship. Again (again), I am not saying that the right wing or the Tea Party have no right to criticize the Obama administration or the Democrats, or mount opposition to their policies. The point I am making, which you have consistently missed or deliberately ignored, is that opposition that so consistently takes the form of calls for the use of violence against elected officials is totally inappropriate in the wake of this tragedy, and the right wing, who have made the use of violence a central plank in their opposition to Obama's policies, needs to take that to heart and exercise better judgment in delineating the form of their opposition. Not exactly their strong suit, as would seem to be indicated by their defensive approach to this whole issue.

Or do you really believe that, in the wake of this shooting, this act of madness, it is appropriate to continue to call for violence in American politics? Do you really believe that it is appropriate to bring guns to political rallies and intimidate and threaten your political opponents with the use of firearms, now that some madman has actually done that and taken the lives of six people in the process? Now that we've seen what it actually looks like when politicians are made into targets, are you going to keep on insisting that the direct threat of force is a legitimate form of political participation? You're aware that this tragedy will likely be cited for a long time whenever some Tea Party candidate trots out the Second Amendment, aren't you? This gun nuttery doesn't have a leg to stand on. It never did, but it's especially distasteful and inappropriate now.


Where were your calls for "decency" and comonsense when people were burning effigies of our last President and wearing t-shirts advocating his execution.

As I've already pointed out, this kind of rhetoric is inappropriate no matter who's peddling it. But again (again) it is the scale and depth of the right wing's commitment to this imagery that stands out here. Let's run with your line of thought here and bring up the last President for a direct comparison. From the link I posted (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline) (seriously, I've checked out your stuff, maybe you could do me the courtesy of looking at mine):


October 18-19, 2009—Reports emerge that the Secret Service has received an unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama. Ronald Kessler's account of presidential security, In the President's Secret Service, states that there has been a 400% increase in such threats in comparison with Obama’s predecessor. Another source of these reports is an August 5, 2009 study by the Congressional Research Service which finds: “The [Secret] Service’s protection mission has increased and become more ‘urgent’ due to the increase in terrorist threats and the expanded arsenal of weapons that terrorists could use in an assassination attempt or attacks on facilities.”

Interesting. It's almost like the scale of the right wing's resort to threats of violent force is exponentially greater than the left's. That doesn't give the left a pass, but it helps us figure out where the focus of our discussion should lie, don't you think?

You still haven't explained to me who the "Tea Party Leadership" is and when you do please let me know what violence they have committed on anyone.

Check the link I put up, which I am more and more convinced you didn't even bother to read. Sharron Angle, Rick Barber, Mike Troxel, Nigel Coleman, Katherine Crabill, Stephen Broden, and others are prominent Tea Partiers whose names come up in relation to the direct advocacy of violence as a legitimate form of political expression. For what it's worth, threatening the government officials of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_government_officials_of_the_United _States) is a crime under federal law, but the point (again) isn't that these people are criminals. The point is that the scale and depth of their references to violence as a legitimate method of political participation constitute a disgracefully inappropriate form of rhetoric.

Are you saying that school board members and university faculty are less relevant than a Congresswoman when it comes to gun violence?

In the context of this discussion, yes. This is a thread about the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords and its consequences for the shape of American political discourse, isn't it? Can we stay on topic?

You and your pals

Seriously - what the fuck are you talking about?

But [Schmeltz] came in here basically saying "it's all THOSE people's fault over there on the right, Stuff like this NEVER happens on the left, its purely a conservative problem."

I'll concede that extremist invective is always harmful to political discourse regardless of its point of origin on the political spectrum. You’re not wrong about that.

Do me a favour and read my posts before putting words in my mouth. Think you can handle that?

And how come no one even mentions the other victims of this shooting?

Because that really would be nothing but a cheap way to score political points. We all agree that the shooting was a terrible tragedy, there's nothing to be gained from reinventing that wheel. Again, this is the political forum, where we discuss the political aspects of current events, ie whether an act of violence should prompt the reduction of calls to violence in political discourse, an idea you continue to resist for reasons you have yet to fully explain.

[Nicodemus]

Did no one hear the interview with the shooter's best friend, saying that he didn't watch TV, didn't listen to political talk radio, wasn't right, wasn't left, didn't follow politics... basically saying that rhetoric had nothing to do with it?

You would think this was a Palin thread. I thought it was about some nut-job committing mass murder.

Topics, fuckers. Stick to 'em.

[Turchinator]

Palin aside, you think it's all coincidence that a Congresswoman who was the target of previous threats gets capped in the head by a deranged shooter?

how did he know about her appearance at the event she was attending if he didn't follow politics?

and who listens to a psycho's best friend for testimony of his behavior?

honestly, no I didn't see the interview. do you have a link?

[travesty]

Schmeltz I get it bro, I really do. In fact I haven't even disagreed with you throughout this entire thread. I'm just pointing out that advocating violence and gun play in the poltical realm is not the sole property of the right. Do they do it more than the left? Probably. Is it despicable reagrdless of source? Yes.

Fin.

[kaiser soze]

Palin aside, you think it's all coincidence that a Congresswoman who was the target of previous threats gets capped in the head by a deranged shooter?

how did he know about her appearance at the event she was attending if he didn't follow politics?

and who listens to a psycho's best friend for testimony of his behavior?

honestly, no I didn't see the interview. do you have a link?

Actually there is evidence this guy had contact with the congresswoman

So yes this assassination attack was not some random act.

It is reported he took a cab to the event after he was pulled over (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110113/NEWS05/101130427/Suspect-pulled-over-before-Tucson-shootings) earlier in the day - he was committed, notes even said that he planned this.

I do find it odd that reports say he had little access to the media, his profile and "manifesto" fits someone who would be a bit wrangled up in the mixed messages of media.

[Nicodemus]

It definitely wasn't a random act. He set out to kill her, but I think it was more about killing a person in power. And being a resident of Arizona, she was his closest big target. When JFK was assassinated Oswald didn't re-load and start firing into the crowd. That's what complete whack-jobs do. This dude is a psychopath that started unravelling when his high school girlfriend broke up with him. He thought his math professor was trying to brainwash him. He was obsessed with online gaming and a documentary on currency. If you dig into his online posts it was never really political stuff, more about lifting weights, being hungry, and how rape is ok. Just nonsensical crap. I don't see him being the kind of guy that would give two shits what goofball Palin thought about anything. He wanted to go out in a blaze of glory and see to it that someone in power went down in the process. And now based on what his friend said about him, I don't think rhetoric had anything to do with it. All the finger pointing this early on seems a little premature and kind of childish.

[Whatitis]

Obama on the 9-year old girl:

"She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted," he said. "I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it."
(y)






While there is still no connection to partisan politics, other than the (D) behind Giffords name, we can thank the media and everyone else that want to point fingers without knowing the full extent of the cause of this tragedy for shit like this! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4YfBKs39Y)
(n)

[kaiser soze]

That is some nasty shit - as much as I find her and her family a complete annoyance, she shouldn't have to deal with this.

So, why do you think people are posting these tweets?

What I find ironic is this - Giffords tone never reached Palin's level but yet has become a victim of an assassination attempt and those who came to hear what she had to say are dead or are suffering.

Their bravery to be a part of the event with little to no security proves that they felt safe to participate. Trent Humphries blamed her for not having security - but what is there to be afraid of ?!

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/12/tucson-tea-party-blames-gifford

“It’s political gamesmanship. The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?” he said. “For all the stuff they accuse her [Palin] of, that gun poster has not done a tenth of the damage to the political discourse as what we’re hearing right now.”

Who is playing the fear card now?

[kaiser soze]

Above the chaos of confusion, accusation, and selfishness - In the story of Christina-Taylor Green there is only love and hope.

http://donatelife-organdonation.blogspot.com/

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/13/20110113arizona-shootings-christina-green-organs.html

And a friend helping the Green family said they received a call yesterday from the organ donation network, telling them that Christina-Taylor's donation had already saved the life of a child on the East Coast.



Trapist monks donate casket for the youngest shooting victim.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Dubuque-Monks-Build-Casket-for-9-year-old-Arizona-Shooting-Victim-113429364.html

The monks bless each casket and pray for the deceased, but this one had a lasting effect.“The process of preparing a casket for Christina, it impacts us in a way like no other adult casket could," said Mulgrew.
1,600 miles away, these Iowa monks want the Greene family to know they are not grieving alone.

May she rest in peace and live on in those she will help

[saz]

Oh no? What's this (http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3ief59b53cf621e16369792d159141d362?imw=Y) and this (http://patterico.com/2009/02/06/another-senator-calls-for-fairness-doctrine-hearings-you-know-the-ones-the-la-times-said-nobody-was-asking-for/) and this (http://news.cnet.com/Net-neutrality-or-Net-censorship/2010-1028_3-6097579.html) and this (http://http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/11/23/tolerance_sharpton_calls_on_fcc_to_censor_rush)

yes, and good. bring the fairness doctrine back. the rise of right-wing hate talk radio was a direct consequence of gutting the fairness doctrine.


And that's fine but it can't be a one way street. Framing an opponent as an enemy of the sate is no different than framing them as an enemy of the people, or an enemy of "the working man", "corporotist" or "on the side of the rich".

bullshit. an enemy of the state is an entity which is a direct national security threat, as opposed to corporate friendly or "corporatists" who are "on the side of the rich" are only serving the agenda of the rich and corporations, which isn't a direct national security threat.


The class envy, class hatred and class warfare the left foments every single day is no different. Period. The left sells "class struggle", the right sells "patriotic duty", if people would quit buying both we'd be just fine.

more bullshit. we don't "foment" "hatred". the struggle for social justice doesn't involve the spin you're attempting. what it does involve is greater economic and social equality. we may disagree with the other side, vehemently in fact, but we don't hate them.


"Responsibility"-the state or fact of being responsible.

being responsible for one's individual words and actions, which isn't that hard to figure out.


What does that even mean in this context? What should Palin and Beck be responsible for?

again, being responsible for one's individual words and actions.


Does it mean they should be personally liable for speaking thier opinion?

if they're calling for certain politicians, who they deem to be "enemies of america" who want to "destroy america" and "sympathize with terrorists", to be "taken out" and then constantly encourage their followers to "re-load", and then those same politicians become of the victims of death threats or violence, perhaps that's a massive que to tone down their grossly irresponsible rhetoric.


If so, should Howard Stern be responsible for people dying of AIDS because his show tells people how to have depraved, dirty sex? Should Click and Clack the car guys be responsible for people dying in car accidents because these guys talk on the radio to HUGE, possibly uneducated audiences and give incomplete advice on how to keep older, less safe cars on the road? That's preposterous.

that entire comparison was preposterous.


Does Responsibility mean that they should CENSOR themselves and not speak thier minds? Careful here.

well, if you constantly have thoughts about those on the other side, those who you politically disagree with, that they should be "taken out" with "second amendment remedies", i'd say that individual is seriously unbalanced, unfit for office, and should seek out psychiatric help immediately.


In fact I consider him the most devisive President of my lifetime.

right. nevermind george w. bush, who said that "you're either with us or against us", championed the "axis of evil", sold an illegal war based on pure lies and false pretenses, and characterized those who disagreed with his policies as "unpatriotic".


Or maddow, or olbermann, or {swallows barf...blechhhh} Ed Shultz

nice try. unlike the right-wing hate talk radio hosts and their counterparts on fox, maddow, olbermann and schultz don't lie and make shit up. they present and make their progressive arguments with the facts, all the while pointing out the lunacy and lies of their right-wing hate radio and television hosts.


According to his wife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uPsMKXlB4eQ), Clay Duke. According to family source (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1232943&format&page=1&listingType=Loc), Amy Bishop. And of course Ted Kaczynski, you know.. the Unabomber.

again, just like with schmeltz, perhaps you should try reading my responses, as opposed to skipping over them. duke had anarchist leanings, and kaczynski was more inclined towards advocating an extremist luddite agenda. when you hear about armed compounds, or a standoff at an armed compound out in a rural area, an abortion clinic bombing, the attempted assassination of or the murder of a doctor who performs abortions, or about militia groups in general, they're not composed and comprised of progressives, socialists or green party members. we're not obsessed with, nor do we have an addiction to guns. we're not obsessed with the second amendment. and the southern poverty law center's report on 75 foiled terrorist plots (http://www.alternet.org/rights/142123/terror_from_the_right%3A_75_plots%2C_conspiracies_ and_racist_rampages_since_oklahoma_city/) didn't involve socialists nor progressives.


What authority do Palin and Beck have?

palin was the governor of alaska and is up to her eyeballs in republican and conservative causes. unfortunately, she is very influential and has a massive following, just like glenn beck.


I just don't see that much difference from today's climate and 4 years ago when the left was excoriating Bush and Cheney as "war criminals", "traitors", "killers" and "enemies of the state". Sorry. For fuck's sake they're still saying that shit.

bush and cheney were/are war criminals. they sanctioned torture and admitted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkILjPu3KTE) it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/03/george-bush-us-waterboarded-terror-mastermind). seeing as the united states convicted japanese soldiers for utilizing water boarding on american prisoners of war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html), which in the united states' eyes equated and was a form of torture, then bush and cheney are equally guilty. and major general antonio taguba is also "still saying that shit":


General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes

By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/18/41514/general-who-probed-abu-ghraib.html) Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2008


Washington — The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing "war crimes" and called for those responsible to be held to account.

The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who's now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. "The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture," he wrote.


Like I said, this turd swirls both ways and it's shameful. It's shameful that within 20 minutes of these people being KILLED, the left wing drum beat of "blame the right" wound up completely marginalizing these people in the name of political gain. WTF?

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

[Turchinator]

What a Champion!

Giffords returns to Washington to vote on historic debt ceiling bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/gabrielle-giffords-debt-ceiling-vote_n_915569.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1209610,b=facebook