PDA

View Full Version : ObamaCare congresswoman sleeps with fishes; news at 11


jrrtoken
01-08-2011, 05:12 PM
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-tucson-arizona)

The Tea Party promised to take America back from the clutches of commie Muslims, and they're doing it one step at a time; frontier justice-style baby. :mex1:
A US congresswoman was shot in the head at point blank range today at a public meeting outside a grocery shop in Arizona. The attacker was a gunman who hit up to a dozen other people at the constituency event before being restrained. Gabrielle Giffords, a 40-year-old Democratic member of the House of Representatives, was taken to hospital where she was last night undergoing surgery.

~~~~

Giffords's Tuscon constituency office was vandalised last March after she voted in favour of Barack Obama's controversial health bill, which has been bitterly opposed by the American right. Giffords had been named as a political campaign target for conservatives in November's elections by former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin for her strong support of Obama's reforms. Palin had published a "target map" on her website using images of gun sights to identify 20 House Democrats, including Giffords, for backing the new health care law. At an event in 2009 which was similar to the one Giffords was holding today, a protester was removed by police when his pistol fell to the supermarket floor.

You ain't going to find that ad on Palin's website now, as she's probably avoiding any implication of motivating/condoning a political assassination and/or terrorist attack. But just in case:

http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2011/01/Palinmap.jpg

I'll leave you to draw the conclusions, friend-o. ;)

N-5/Prudii
01-08-2011, 05:23 PM
Add Palin to the list, and i'll be happy.

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-08-2011, 06:15 PM
Pastramix: Thank you so much for preserving that.... this kinda stuff just "vaporizes" too often. A smoking gun is a smoking gun, or at least a gun sight.

@N5/Prudii - yup.

Samnmax221
01-08-2011, 08:27 PM
Can we go all Waco on the Teapartiers now, I'm getting really sick of this ****?

Lord of Hunger
01-08-2011, 10:44 PM
Can we go all Waco on the Teabaggers now, I'm getting really sick of this ****?
No offense, but that sort of mentality is why that congresswoman got shot in the first place.

Those "Teabaggers" are you fellow Americans. We are all Americans, America has no place for divided identity, and the sooner we all realize this the sooner our world will be a better place. For the sake of our country, let's all be "the better man".

Or should we just all point fingers and scream about whether someone has a "D" or an "R" after their name?

urluckyday
01-08-2011, 10:54 PM
I'm going to withhold judgment on this issue until there's more information about it...I'm not into conspiracy theories.

Tommycat
01-09-2011, 01:05 AM
Yes, just like the taxicab stabber was one of the tea party. Seems that every time one of the left's people gets attacked, they scream, "There's another Tea[partier] doing bad things" Then a few days later we find that the attacker was actually one of the leftists. Yet there has never been an apology from those leftists here who accused the right of being violent monsters. So far none of the violence that has been blamed on the Tea Party has actually been done by tea party members.

Oh and maybe, JUST MAYBE, before you go and accuse the righties, you might do a bit of research.

Jared Lee Loughner was at best, a nutjob. He talked of mind control and was pretty well rambling in his youtube videos. Oh and in case you bring up that he was against the takeover by the government, he also happens to like the US flag burning vid. Not exactly typical of the over the top nationalist right wingers.

Darth Avlectus
01-09-2011, 01:58 AM
Kay I was going to stop posting here just because tensions arise. But to this I just have to say something.

As a libertarian I have never been particularly a fan of Palin despite my rightward lean. Personally I abhor that she shoots wolves. Having had a 69-72% wolf hybrid myself, I can tell you it is not like having a dog. So she's on my ****-list for that.
Still this appears, at best, to be indirect influence. Until we have evidence of direct influence, the most that can be done to Palin is to shake a finger at her.

The shooter ought to be made to bear the full brunt of his responsibility for his own actions. Period.

I can foresee several issues coming up as a consequence of this:
-Reinforces the negative stereotype/image of our military. If you have had personal bad experience with military, then that's one thing and a little irrationality is allowed. (I may still press you on it, though.)

-This will get the anti-gun "We'll 'fix' the 2nd amendment" crowd in a frenzy again to ban guns or at least put more restrictive laws on them as well as a statist supervisory monitoring program by the government. You could get rid of all nukes and guns and some idiot/s would later accidentally re/discover how to make them (all over again).

-Censorship issues may come up. You may be (insert political lean/affiliation) wanting to shut up your opposite, but remember it'll eventually backfire because censorship cuts both directions.

It is sad that things had to come to this, today. Offering my condolences: My thoughts and prayers are with Gabrielle Giffords, the congresswoman. I hope yours are as well regardless your personal beliefs.

Samnmax221
01-09-2011, 02:56 AM
No offense, but that sort of mentality is why that congresswoman got shot in the first place.

Those "Teabaggers" are you fellow Americans. We are all Americans, America has no place for divided identity, and the sooner we all realize this the sooner our world will be a better place. For the sake of our country, let's all be "the better man".

Or should we just all point fingers and scream about whether someone has a "D" or an "R" after their name?
No it's not. We're talking about a bunch of reckless celebrity *******s (Beck, Palin, O'Reilly) who have spent the last 2 years whipping crazy people into a frenzy, and then acting like they have no responsibility when one of those people goes nuts. O'Reilly spent years calling George Tiller a murderer (No he wasn't) and then gets all quiet when some nutjob kills him. What this kind of **** has lead to is pretty similar to all the militia bull**** that went on back in the 90's, the problem now is everyone has the internet, and 24 hour propaganda broadcasts masquerading as news.

Totenkopf
01-09-2011, 07:50 AM
No it's not. We're talking about a bunch of reckless celebrity *******s (Beck, Palin, O'Reilly) who have spent the last 2 years whipping crazy people into a frenzy, and then acting like they have no responsibility when one of those people goes nuts. O'Reilly spent years calling George Tiller a murderer (No he wasn't) and then gets all quiet when some nutjob kills him. What this kind of **** has lead to is pretty similar to all the militia bull**** that went on back in the 90's, the problem now is everyone has the internet, and 24 hour propaganda broadcasts masquerading as news.

Ok, so if/when Sarah Palin ever eats a bullet, we should all hunt down the rabid Palin/Tea party haters at LF, Huffpo, MSNBC, etc... b/c of all the **** they've been posting? Makes as much sense as what you're advocating..... :rolleyes:

Q
01-09-2011, 07:55 AM
Before we start jumping to conclusions...
Caiti Parker, who knew the suspect in high school four years ago, described him as a loner and political radical who was left-wing or liberal at the time and obsessed with the 2012 phenomenon.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting)

And, though six others died in the attack, Giffords' surgery was a success and her surgeon expects her to recover.

Totenkopf
01-09-2011, 08:06 AM
I got that vibe when the media was obsessing about the subject yesterday and got to discussing the perp.

Sabretooth
01-09-2011, 08:54 AM
No it's not. We're talking about a bunch of reckless celebrity *******s (Beck, Palin, O'Reilly) who have spent the last 2 years whipping crazy people into a frenzy, and then acting like they have no responsibility when one of those people goes nuts. O'Reilly spent years calling George Tiller a murderer (No he wasn't) and then gets all quiet when some nutjob kills him. What this kind of **** has lead to is pretty similar to all the militia bull**** that went on back in the 90's, the problem now is everyone has the internet, and 24 hour propaganda broadcasts masquerading as news.

Post reminds me of the situation in Pakistan right now - a mass radicalisation of the youth via the mass media, passing right through the corrupt and ineffective government. Resulted in the governor of the Punjab province of the country being killed by one of his security guards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmaan_Taseer#Death), over a blasphemy law that he opposed.

Since Taseer's death, rather than being condemned, was celebrated by radicalised people across the country, it's pretty safe to say that Pakistan's heading down an anti-liberal, ultra-religious fundie path that may end up having serious consequences 20-30 years down the road.

Tommycat
01-09-2011, 01:18 PM
Evil-Q: No fair hitting the Tea Party haters here with the truth. Only the Tea Party and Right wingers are willing to shoot people they oppose.

So this guy was a Liberal
So he was Left Wing.
He still must have had ties to the Tea party... somehow.
He also killed a judge that was appointed by George HW Bush.

This guy was anti-government. Giffords represented a part of that government to him. It could have been any congressperson and he would have shot them. He just happened to live in Tucson. Which just happened to be Congressional District 8. Which just happened to be Giffords District.

urluckyday
01-09-2011, 05:03 PM
What's up with the title of this thread? She's not dead...she was actually communicating with the hospital staff today.

Pho3nix
01-09-2011, 05:14 PM
Because he made the thread when she was still in critical condition and assumed she would die

urluckyday
01-09-2011, 05:15 PM
He probably should fix that then.

mimartin
01-09-2011, 05:29 PM
No fair hitting the Tea Party haters here with the truth. Only the Tea Party and Right wingers are willing to shoot people they oppose. No, but it is completely fair to compare liberals to unpatriotic flag burners. News for you I love my country just as much as anyone and while I hate to see the flag disrespected. I will fully defend someone’s right to burn it because of a little thing called the Constitution.

Until everyone figures out 1 + 2 does not equal 7 these debates are useless. Just because someone supports certain positions on the left or the right does not make someone a Republican or a Democrat. I should know, I once voted for Reagan and then again Bush, does that make me a Republican?

jrrtoken
01-09-2011, 06:08 PM
What's up with the title of this thread? She's not dead...she was actually communicating with the hospital staff today.For the first hours of reporting the shooting most news agencies labeled her as dead, which although was s***** reporting at the time, I guess they were somewhat correct in treating a headshot as a fatality. 90% of the time, a slug in the head means a kick of the bucket (Except in Fallout).

So this guy was a Liberal
So he was Left Wing.
He still must have had ties to the Tea party... somehow.
He also killed a judge that was appointed by George HW Bush.I fail to see your link between "anti-government" and "liberal". Any ideology could be anti-government, and by the suspect's proclivities concerning reading material, he wouldn't really fit any spectrum role nicely.

Do I think that he was influenced by the anti-government rhetoric being produced by the Tea Party, such as the Palin hit-list? Definitely. Does that make the shooter a bona-fide supporter of the Tea Party movement? Not exactly, but I'd certainly say that the movement should be responsible for its own rhetoric, including all of its complications, no matter how distant.

This guy was anti-government. Giffords represented a part of that government to him. It could have been any congressperson and he would have shot them. He just happened to live in Tucson. Which just happened to be Congressional District 8. Which just happened to be Giffords District.Funny; your previous list seems to imply some agenda-driven plot, rather than "just some anarchist-type". :raise:

Totenkopf
01-09-2011, 08:42 PM
I fail to see your link between "anti-government" and "liberal". Any ideology could be anti-government, and by the suspect's proclivities concerning reading material, he wouldn't really fit any spectrum role nicely.

Yeah, we pretty much spent a lot of the first decade of the 2000s with libs being anti-govt and the last few years with the other side being vs increased govt control.

Do I think that he was influenced by the anti-government rhetoric being produced by the Tea Party, such as the Palin hit-list? Definitely. Does that make the shooter a bona-fide supporter of the Tea Party movement? Not exactly, but I'd certainly say that the movement should be responsible for its own rhetoric, including all of its complications, no matter how distant.

Based on what exactly? If the authorities aren't yet clear about his motivations, where have you divined his influences from then? He could have easily been reading the huffpo for much of the last 10 years and decided the feds were getting out of control. I've yet to see the other side claim any responsibility for much of its own vile and negative rhetoric, nevermind what they accuse the tea partiers of doing.:raise:

Tommycat
01-09-2011, 09:09 PM
No, but it is completely fair to compare liberals to unpatriotic flag burners. News for you I love my country just as much as anyone and while I hate to see the flag disrespected. I will fully defend someone’s right to burn it because of a little thing called the Constitution.

Until everyone figures out 1 + 2 does not equal 7 these debates are useless. Just because someone supports certain positions on the left or the right does not make someone a Republican or a Democrat. I should know, I once voted for Reagan and then again Bush, does that make me a Republican?

No, I was making a note of his liberal leanings which go further left than your average leftie. I'm making note of things which do not fit the mold of saying he was a tea partier.

And calling him a leftist/liberal comes from his classmates who know him better than you or I do. So I'd guess they know him enough to say whether he was left/right. Looking through his ramblings and reading list he could be classified as either. Actually you could say some of his ramblings are far rightist, while others are far leftist.

I don't call him either. I call him a nutjob. BUT Since some people here prefer to claim he's a Tea partier, I figured we ought to point out that his classmate says he was a liberal, not a conservative.

mimartin
01-09-2011, 09:57 PM
I figured we ought to point out that his classmate says he was a liberal, not a conservative.I would say most of my classmates would say I was a conservative and not a liberal because of my stance on the Constitution and finance. I doubt many any here would say the same.

Tommycat
01-09-2011, 10:27 PM
Yes, but the difference is that at this point, we don't have an itemized list of his positions on a great many issues. And as you've pointed out, a stance on a specific thing does not make them Liberal/Conservative. Again, I'm not saying he was either. People who know him better than we do have called him Liberal. He was an anarchist, Critical of religion, Includes in his favorite books "The Communist Manifesto" Now tell me how many people here who include those three fall on the right side of the fence?

He's also made a point of posting his videos.Here (http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/u/0/7uRjwPWaxiY)
Which indicate to me that he is either a nutjob, or HEAVILY self medicating. Neither of which are specifically left or right. Though conservatives tend to be more anti-drug, as we've seen, some are hypocrites. Honestly this guy may have had serious mental problems. Schizophrenia would be my guess. Which again is not limited to left/right ideology. That in itself is the reason why I get so upset at people who point at this stuff and scream "TEA PARTIERS" every time. It's as if they are saying only the Right can have crazies.

Lord of Hunger
01-09-2011, 10:53 PM
No it's not. We're talking about a bunch of reckless celebrity *******s (Beck, Palin, O'Reilly) who have spent the last 2 years whipping crazy people into a frenzy, and then acting like they have no responsibility when one of those people goes nuts. O'Reilly spent years calling George Tiller a murderer (No he wasn't) and then gets all quiet when some nutjob kills him. What this kind of **** has lead to is pretty similar to all the militia bull**** that went on back in the 90's, the problem now is everyone has the internet, and 24 hour propaganda broadcasts masquerading as news.
Yes, let's conveniently point out one side's talking heads as if the other side's are quiet and non-existent. Well, actually, the Lefist talking heads are quiet compared to those on Fox, because they prefer subtlety when spreading emotional discord among our citizenry.

This is so idiotic! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE BELONGS TO A SIDE OR NOT! THE SIDES ARE MEANINGLESS, ALL THEY DO IS DIVIDE US WHEN THERE ARE EASY POINTS FOR COMPROMISE!

Example:
Abortion
-Leftist View: Freedom of Choice
-Rightwing View: Sanctity of Life
-Point of Compromise: We need to reduce teen pregnancy.
-Solution: Comprehensive sexual education and access to birth control (and yes, I know plenty of Liberals AND Conservatives that agree with this).

It's not that hard for us to work together as Americans. Our Founding Fathers did it, so I'd say that it's good enough for us. Why are we letting the news media tell us otherwise?

jrrtoken
01-09-2011, 11:37 PM
Based on what exactly? If the authorities aren't yet clear about his motivations, where have you divined his influences from then? He could have easily been reading the huffpo for much of the last 10 years and decided the feds were getting out of control. I've yet to see the other side claim any responsibility for much of its own vile and negative rhetoric, nevermind what they accuse the tea partiers of doing.:raise:It's a populist movement with populist rhetoric that pulls at peoples emotions, no matter how uncouthly sensationalist it might be. It'd probably be accurate to say that most of its "grassroots" supporters don't really care about the philosophy or ideology behind the movement, but rather, the apparent meaning and charisma associated with it; "Taking the government back," and other messages can be co-opted by anyone for anything, no matter how disassociated it might be.

Yes, but the difference is that at this point, we don't have an itemized list of his positions on a great many issues. And as you've pointed out, a stance on a specific thing does not make them Liberal/Conservative. Again, I'm not saying he was either. People who know him better than we do have called him Liberal. He was an anarchist, Critical of religion, Includes in his favorite books "The Communist Manifesto" Now tell me how many people here who include those three fall on the right side of the fence?You forgot to mention that he admired Mein Kampf. However, unlike your Guevara-clad liberal narrative, I don't believe that the shooter adheres to any specific political spectrum, but instead might have been motivated by the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement, without identifying himself with it. He's simply co-opting the message to his own gains, without aligning himself with the message. So although the core philosophy of the Tea Party is not what is being debated as conducive to violence and radicalization, but rather, its own rhetoric.

urluckyday
01-10-2011, 12:17 AM
Probably a stupid question, but why is this shooting automatically assumed to be politically motivated? Have they questioned the shooter? Is it possible that this guy was just a psychopathic killer just going on a spree in a busy area?

I'm only asking b/c I don't know all the details...

Okay, so it seems like it was a little bit of both (politically motivated/insanity). It's clear that this guy needed mental help.

This is a video compilation of Jared Lee Loughner's youtube videos that he posted. (it's a lot of reading) Quite scary stuff if you ask me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OaTLWLRTx0

Totenkopf
01-10-2011, 12:18 AM
It's a populist movement with populist rhetoric that pulls at peoples emotions, no matter how uncouthly sensationalist it might be. It'd probably be accurate to say that most of its "grassroots" supporters don't really care about the philosophy or ideology behind the movement, but rather, the apparent meaning and charisma associated with it; "Taking the government back," and other messages can be co-opted by anyone for anything, no matter how disassociated it might be.

You forgot to mention that he admired Mein Kampf. However, unlike your Guevara-clad liberal narrative, I don't believe that the shooter adheres to any specific political spectrum, but instead might have been motivated by the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement, without identifying himself with it. He's simply co-opting the message to his own gains, without aligning himself with the message. So although the core philosophy of the Tea Party is not what is being debated as conducive to violence and radicalization, but rather, its own rhetoric.


Outside of a few cranks, I've yet to see the "tea party movement" advocate violent overthrow (unlike the anti-globalists, anarchists and other fringe movements) of the govt. Just as there may be hotheads found amongst that movement, they are also present in the progressive movement, which itself advocates violent revolution as a legitimate means to bring down what they see as an unjust government. It is a leftist populist movement which, in contrast to the "tea partiers" (and frankly sane Americans) holds to the misbegotten belief that the govt should provide all manner of benefits and assorted entitlements to the people. Sadly, there are many in this country that think that is a good idea.....an expansive federal govt that makes false promises of a cornucopia of wealth if the people would but submit to it. Modern day slavery. The idea that the US govt can/will take care of its citizens is about as believable as saying that the inner cities of America and the Indian reservation system (pre-casinos) are models of efficiency and material (nevermind spiritual) success.

urluckyday
01-10-2011, 12:34 AM
Apparently this is another possible youtube channel by the shooter...a lot of his uploads and favorite videos are nonsense or unrelated...but there are a few thrown in there about politics (even one about Gabrielle Giffords) and another video favorited made by his other YouTube name ("classitup10").

http://www.youtube.com/user/bigjared420

It becomes increasingly clear that this guy wasn't conforming to any sort of political group but rather acting upon his emotions and insane thoughts.

Astor
01-10-2011, 06:08 AM
It's as if they are saying only the Right can have crazies.

You should come to Britain. Some elements of the left are chock full of crazy.

It seems to me, from an outsider's point of the view, in addition to the guys obvious mental deficit, that the extreme (to an outsider, at least) rhetoric of both sides of American politics are to blame for this - listening to some networks at times makes it sound as if the US is engaged in a pseudo civil war. Right or left, it doesn't seem surprising that someone started shooting. To an outsider, at least.

Tommycat
01-10-2011, 11:55 AM
You forgot to mention that he admired Mein Kampf. However, unlike your Guevara-clad liberal narrative, I don't believe that the shooter adheres to any specific political spectrum, but instead might have been motivated by the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement, without identifying himself with it. He's simply co-opting the message to his own gains, without aligning himself with the message. So although the core philosophy of the Tea Party is not what is being debated as conducive to violence and radicalization, but rather, its own rhetoric.

And you have some proof that he even read Tea Party literature? All I get so far is him talking about creating his own currency, mind control(through grammar of all things), going back to the Gold standard, and a whole bunch of very random and disjointed thoughts intermingled with pseudo-intellectual nonsense. His comments, at least on his youtube page, seem to be at best the ramblings of a guy who smoked just a bit too many funny cigarettes. Nothing indicates he paid attention to either party. But you have been quite willing to make the leap to him somehow getting his target from the Tea Party.

I on the other hand do not ascribe his attack to either left or right. I chalk it up to a random nutjob who believed the government was an evil mind control agency and sadly for Giffords she represented that government to him. She just happened to be the closest to his house(within 5 miles). I mean seriously this guy was at best a tinfoil hat wearer.

mimartin
01-10-2011, 12:55 PM
going back to the Gold standard, That settles it, it is all Ron Paul’s fault. :xp:

I have little doubt that he had mental problems. However, it does not help that people, politicians and media talking heads are yelling at the top of their lungs that those on the other side of the political spectrum are evil and trying to destroy our way of life just because they disagree with that person. While a mentally staple person may see it for what it is, political rhetoric. Someone mentally unstable may consider it a call to action.

Tommycat
01-10-2011, 02:05 PM
Someone mentally unstable may consider it a call to action.

I dunno, this guy may have been unstable enough to have found a call to action in Martha Stewart Living.

mimartin
01-10-2011, 02:39 PM
While that may be very true, it does not mean the next oil executive, doctor or politician that is shot in the head will not be caused by allowing this stupid rhetoric. I may not have agreed with President George Bush policies, or intelligence for that matter, but I do believe he thought he was doing what was in the best interest of this nation. However, people like Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly or Rush shout all over the airwaves that Obama’s and the Dem’s only goal is to destroy this nation (I’ll give Beck a pass because he seems just as mentally unstable as this guy). Don’t get me wrong, the left does it too, but they are nowhere near as popular as these talking heads or at least they put comedic spin on their views.

Tommycat
01-10-2011, 04:52 PM
Sorry, but the freedom of the press allows those vitriolic b7's on the air in as much as the previous 8 years allowed the vitriolic spewing from the other side. Honestly just because Bill Mauer has a comedic tone does not mean that his hatefulness isn't spread. I don't really like how spite filled they are, but frankly it's not new. What we as a nation need to do is, like you and I do here, relax and realize the other side is not evil incarnate out to destroy everything we believe in. It doesn't help matters when people jump to the conclusion that a person MUST have been influenced by Palin/Rush/Savage/<Talking head of preference> every time some whack job goes out and does stupid and violent things.

And ya know what... Actual heart felt apologies might go a long way towards healing the rift. But I'm not expecting those to hit the airwaves any time soon.

mimartin
01-10-2011, 04:56 PM
Where did I say we should violate anyone's Freedom of Speech or Press? :rolleyes: Sorry did not read the rest as I could not get pass that.

Tommycat
01-10-2011, 05:15 PM
Didn't say you did. Just stating the "problem" in trying to correct said talking heads.

Totenkopf
01-10-2011, 05:52 PM
Problem is that the 1st Amendment is actually there to protect divisive, offensive and often questionable speech. I'm going to guess that a lot of the public fallout from this is going to again be to villify certain povs and make tenuous (at best) links between what people say on air and the actions "unstable" people take. IIRC Rush et al were indirectly blamed by his detractors for the OK bombing for putting out too much "anti-govt" rhetoric. It is in some ways amazing that we want to whitewash words like n***** from Huck Finn, but want to be able to say it on air/in film/in music w/abandon (ie, it seems we're now somewhat schizo about the boundaries of free speech). By all current accounts, this guy was the lone wackjob that the SS and FBI dread having to deal with b/c they often strike w/o warning. It also appears that he had some kind of obsessive grudge vs Giffords for a perceived slight in the recent past.

mimartin
01-10-2011, 06:28 PM
Problem is that the 1st Amendment is actually there to protect divisive, offensive and often questionable speech. Why exactly is that a problem?

My problem with the political hacks has nothing to do with what they say beyond their resorting to name calling and outright lies without a thread of evidence. I just find it funny that we hold people like the Dixie Chicks, Dan Rather and Bill Maher responsible for saying something off the cuff (even when it is true or stated as an opinion), but others can say whatever they want and get away with it.

I guess it comes from rightwing hatemongering being more profitable than leftwing hatemongering. (please do not think I am putting the Dixie Chicks into the hatemongering level. The entire group was only persecuted because of Maines’ innocent opinion).

Tommycat
01-10-2011, 07:25 PM
During President Bush's term there were a number on the left who used the medium of movies television and print ads who pushed the bounds as far or further than Rush. Some even having veiled recommendations for Bush's assassination(There was a movie regarding this). "Comedy" was used as a medium for some of the most vile insults. Heck one comedian even hoped for Rush to die. There is no reason that we should give them a pass for their brand of hatemongering because it is wrapped in a comedic routine. It's all entertainment. People like Rush, O'Reilley, Hannity, Savage et al are entertainment. They may not be your entertainment, but they are none the less. They are also listed as opinion from the start.

Quite frankly I'd give them more of a pass simply because you get exactly what you expect from them. Those who watch/listen to them are almost always already of the same opinion. But when watching regular TV shows, you get the agendas of the actors/producers/writers thrown in. The hidden hatemongering being more likely to get someone to act. Their hate is wrapped in a pretty package. Opinion shows are like the generic form of hate.

jrrtoken
01-10-2011, 07:28 PM
And you have some proof that he even read Tea Party literature? All I get so far is him talking about creating his own currency, mind control(through grammar of all things), going back to the Gold standard, and a whole bunch of very random and disjointed thoughts intermingled with pseudo-intellectual nonsense. His comments, at least on his youtube page, seem to be at best the ramblings of a guy who smoked just a bit too many funny cigarettes. Nothing indicates he paid attention to either party. But you have been quite willing to make the leap to him somehow getting his target from the Tea Party.And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Did you even read my previous post? I do not accuse the Tea Party for supporting an inherently violent agenda, nor do I see the shooter supporting the Tea Party on any foundation; the guy, by any situation, probably interpreted rhetoric in his own, violent way.

And don't ask how/where he could have viewed Tea Party literature; any schizo watching Fox News could have interpreted the slightest hint of counter-administration monologuing as a call to action. The same can be said for any political pundit, but since the Tea Party is the most popular counter-political movement currently, that would obviously be the first source to suspect.

Tommycat
01-10-2011, 08:18 PM
And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Did you even read my previous post? I do not accuse the Tea Party for supporting an inherently violent agenda, nor do I see the shooter supporting the Tea Party on any foundation; the guy, by any situation, probably interpreted rhetoric in his own, violent way.

And don't ask how/where he could have viewed Tea Party literature; any schizo watching Fox News could have interpreted the slightest hint of counter-administration monologuing as a call to action. The same can be said for any political pundit, but since the Tea Party is the most popular counter-political movement currently, that would obviously be the first source to suspect.

Yeah, may as well ask me to prove there were no pink elephants on earth anywhere. You claim he saw Foxnews. I haven't seen any evidence to show that he has. For all we know he got his "hate" from the Colbert report. Heck it may have been from the many LIBERAL groups that also disliked Giffords for her strong support of the second Amendment, and border security. There is no evidence that he targeted her specifically because of anything the Tea Party did. The Director of the FBI is refusing to claim any motivation for the attack. I'm sticking with crazy guy went crazy and killed a bunch of innocent people who happened to be in the wrong place.

Totenkopf
01-10-2011, 08:22 PM
And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Did you even read my previous post? I do not accuse the Tea Party for supporting an inherently violent agenda, nor do I see the shooter supporting the Tea Party on any foundation; the guy, by any situation, probably interpreted rhetoric in his own, violent way.

And don't ask how/where he could have viewed Tea Party literature; any schizo watching Fox News could have interpreted the slightest hint of counter-administration monologuing as a call to action. The same can be said for any political pundit, but since the Tea Party is the most popular counter-political movement currently, that would obviously be the first source to suspect.


So much for innocent until proven guilty. :xp: The fact is that YOU are insinuating that the Tea Party rhetoric is what influenced him, but have no evidence to back it up. That is so far proving to be an entirely unsupportable position in light of the facts about Loughner that are coming out. So, if I understand you corretly, it is NOT unfair to insinuate that islamic rhetoric had an undue influence on Maj Hasan and perhaps we should monitor islamic info sources more closely. Afterall, that's what all the libs were cautioning us against in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting. Guess when their favorite objects of hate are convenient scapegoats, such caution goes right out the proverbial window. Nice. :rolleyes:

Btw, has anyone seen the mug shot of this guy? Immediately reminded me of Uncle Fester from the '60s tv show Adam's Family. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20028069-504083.htmlhttp://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/assets_c/2011/01/Loughner-thumb-480x600.jpg http://images.quizilla.com/S/snuffhouse/1086659937_saaafester.JPG

Also, regarding poster in OP: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
Seems like the Dems went there first several years back.
http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DLC-Targeting-map.gif

@mim: I say problem b/c most of the so called "heated rhetoric/hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment. We really don't want to have committees deciding what we can and can not say b/c someone believes it might affect a crazy person. Self-restraint is all nice and fine, but I see no reason to force people to curb their speech b/c someone, somewhere is going to decide to be offended by it and label it "hateful". (btw, not making any claims about what you're saying one way or another, just spelling out my position).

Tommycat
01-10-2011, 08:47 PM
Isn't it strange that the "Crosshairs" on Palin's sheet look less like gun sights and more like surveyor's crosshairs. Gun sights don't have the cross leaving the circle.

jrrtoken
01-10-2011, 09:00 PM
So much for innocent until proven guilty. :xp: The fact is that YOU are insinuating that the Tea Party rhetoric is what influenced him, but have no evidence to back it up.I am suggesting that there is a possible connection between the vandalism of Giffords' office earlier in the year, the mention of Giffords as a "target" for specific political pressure, and now the shooting, is a currently-valid theory for the shooter's motive. Any investigation which considers the string of incidents to be a pure coincidence isn't being productive whatsoever, even if it means deducing false leads from legitimate ones.

I'm not debating that the shooter had a particular, concrete motive to downplay his insanity, I am simply suggesting that his bizzaro world-lens might have been conducive to his violence being influenced by a rather populist political movement. Yes, it could be absolutely anything, but considering all of the evidence provided, to rule out that possibility would be foolhardy.

So, if I understand you corretly, it is NOT unfair to insinuate that islamic rhetoric had an undue influence on Maj Hasan and perhaps we should monitor islamic info sources more closely. Afterall, that's what all the libs were cautioning us against in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting.When testimony after documented testimony proved to be accurate, then maybe that was somewhat justified. Any investigation needs a variety of motives, even if they all turn out to be absolutely wrong in the end. Yeah, it often leads to unfair discrimination against a variety of attributes of any given person, but it's pretty damn unavoidable. When it feeds an entire profiling division on strictly narrow paradigms, then it's problematic.

mimartin
01-10-2011, 09:06 PM
@mim: I say problem b/c most of the so called "heated rhetoric/hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment. We really don't want to have committees deciding what we can and can not say b/c someone believes it might affect a crazy person. Self-restraint is all nice and fine, but I see no reason to force people to curb their speech b/c someone, somewhere is going to decide to be offended by it and label it "hateful". (btw, not making any claims about what you're saying one way or another, just spelling out my position).I say we should curb this type of speech because this type of name calling is better suited to 7 year olds. They should be attacking the message not just calling people names. Anyone with two brain cells together should want evidence and not the standard 3 year old “I’m rubber and your clue” argument, but I guess even stupid people need entertainment.

Totenkopf
01-10-2011, 09:35 PM
@PX--well, it's fair to say you're focusing excessively on only 1 potential source as being a primary motivator. Had you said they should look at ALL possible sources equally and not reject any potential one out-of-hand, you'd be on firmer ground. But, going by your poster pic and subsequent arguments, it's clear you are suggesting that the TP rhetoric is more than merely one possible source of influence. As to your second argument, isn't it interesting that many of the far-left loons posing as serious journalists and commentators have immediately seized on the current vacuum to put forth an unsubstaniated narrative to explain the pyscho's actions. Besides, you don't appear to be overly concerned about the narrow paradigm when it's the TP or other conservatives that are the focus of that kind of problematic analysis.

@mim: I agree that such language can be curbed, but see no need for it to be done by edict and not self-control (either on the left, right and anywhere inbetween). ;)

Tommycat
01-10-2011, 11:48 PM
Pastsramix. That would hold more water if you didn't simply focus on the conservative aspects while ignoring his "Liberal" history. I mean it isn't like only Conservatives have been anti-government. Not to mention that as of late both sides have been very vitriolic.

Jedi/Sith
01-11-2011, 12:09 AM
I must say this was very interesting read on one side we have right arguing that he was left. On the other side we have the left arguing that he was right. Now for all that I care about he could be from the right or the left. I believe that he was neither though. My reason well I believe the guy was plain crazy. He just believe that he had to kill this person for some reason which is wrong. Now both of you may argue this over and over but what does that accomplish. I would say nothing would be accomplished except a waste of your time. The thing is that these people were kill by crazy man.


The saddest thing is that there was a 9 year old girl that is now died. I do not see any reason for the arguing over this. In this world all people have their faults some bigger than other and the biggest fault is that of taking a life. It is truly sad that people argue over issue like this. There is only one person to blame and that person is who fired the bullets.

Tommycat
01-11-2011, 12:26 AM
If you believe I've been saying he's left you've missed a lot. I've been saying from the start that it's silly to put this on either party.

Working Class Hero
01-11-2011, 10:21 AM
I must say this was very interesting read on one side we have right arguing that he was left. On the other side we have the left arguing that he was right. Now for all that I care about he could be from the right or the left. I believe that he was neither though. My reason well I believe the guy was plain crazy. He just believe that he had to kill this person for some reason which is wrong. Now both of you may argue this over and over but what does that accomplish. I would say nothing would be accomplished except a waste of your time. The thing is that these people were kill by crazy man.


The saddest thing is that there was a 9 year old girl that is now died. I do not see any reason for the arguing over this. In this world all people have their faults some bigger than other and the biggest fault is that of taking a life. It is truly sad that people argue over issue like this. There is only one person to blame and that person is who fired the bullets.
My friend, I may hardly ever agree with you on politics, but this post gets my 100% approval. :thmbup1:

The only thing this has shown me is that our country is even more messed up than I realized....why can't we just come together and just say he was an insane bad dude and leave it at that? Who cares whether he watched Glen Beck or Keith Olberman....I've never known someone to be motivated to kill after watching a punditry show. :raise:

Isn't it strange that the "Crosshairs" on Palin's sheet look less like gun sights and more like surveyor's crosshairs. Gun sights don't have the cross leaving the circle.
Your jesting talent is monstrously underrated.

Thanatos9t
01-11-2011, 10:34 AM
The saddest thing is that there was a 9 year old girl that is now died.

If it wasn't for the serious nature of this thread and of the subject manner, I would be making fun of that sentence :(.

Yet again the innocent must suffer because of some crazy person and again it raises the point why have gun laws not been amended (being an Englishman I fail to comprehend the need for such weapons.)

All guns do is spread a one-upmanship contest e.g. the police have guns to protect us, we need guns to protect us, people have guns to protect them we need better guns to rob them etcetera.

Sabretooth
01-11-2011, 10:35 AM
I've never known someone to be motivated to kill after watching a punditry show. :raise:

What are you talking about, watching punditry shows always motivates me to brutally kill someone.

urluckyday
01-11-2011, 11:49 AM
What are you talking about, watching punditry shows always motivates me to brutally kill someone.

I've never wanted to kill someone else after one of those shows...just myself.

Tommycat
01-11-2011, 11:55 AM
All guns do is spread a one-upmanship contest e.g. the police have guns to protect us, we need guns to protect us, people have guns to protect them we need better guns to rob them etcetera.
Actually, the person who tackled the gunman was armed. He happened to be a responsible gun owner. He realized that it was not necessary to shoot as the man was essentially disarmed at the time(Jarred was reloading and the clip was knocked from his hand).

As for the little girl, THAT is the saddest thing from this whole incident. To make matters worse, the church from Kansas is planning on disrupting her funeral on Thursday (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/group-to-picket-9-year-old-tucson-victims-1177921.html).

mimartin
01-11-2011, 11:59 AM
Yet again the innocent must suffer because of some crazy person and again it raises the point why have gun laws not been amended (being an Englishman I fail to comprehend the need for such weapons.) We need guns to protect ourselves. Had everyone in attendance had a gun then the crazy person may have only gotten off one shot.

Of course there may have been more dead than 6 too

To make matters worse, the church from Kansas is planning on disrupting her funeral on Thursday (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/group-to-picket-9-year-old-tucson-victims-1177921.html).
That may be one of the most disturbing things I have ever read. If there ever was a doubt in my mind that wbc was a church and not a hate group it is gone.

Totenkopf
01-11-2011, 12:27 PM
Of course there may have been more dead than 6 too....

And/or Jared would have been nothing more than a bullet ridden corpse. As to the wbc, it's ashame those trolls can't find something more constructive to do with their time.

mimartin
01-11-2011, 12:35 PM
I see things like wbc and it make me almost lose all hope in mankind, but then I remember people like Bill Badgers, Joe Zamudio, Patricia Maisch, and Daniel Hernadez Jr and I have some hope.

Very little, but some...

Edit: Well it is settled, Mr. Oxycodone himself just admitted the influence that caused the Arizona shooting was music. So glad that is settled (at least it wasn't games).

The Doctor
01-11-2011, 01:58 PM
To make matters worse, the church from Kansas is planning on disrupting her funeral on Thursday (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/group-to-picket-9-year-old-tucson-victims-1177921.html).

zealots...

Tommycat
01-11-2011, 02:49 PM
Edit: Well it is settled, Mr. Oxycodone himself just admitted the influence that caused the Arizona shooting was music. So glad that is settled (at least it wasn't games).

WHAT?!?! It wasn't the Liberal Mainstream Drive-By Media's fault?

Sheesh. Here I am saying that the shooting was not motivated by Right/Left ideologies.

Wellllll... Guess we need the musicians to all watch their lyrics.

Wait... Ya know he's gonna have a hard time. I know quite a few musicians who actually listen to his program. Though... Admittedly, a lot of music is just as anti-government(or more so) than even the talking heads when their party isn't in power. It holds just as much water as blaming it on the Tea Party/Biased Liberal Media™

mimartin
01-11-2011, 03:55 PM
Rush has a point, I committed suicide in the 1980’s due to Queen’s Don’t try Suicide and Ozzy’s Suicide Solution….. I got better.

Totenkopf
01-11-2011, 04:59 PM
^So, what's it like on the other side? Also, where's a good club when you need one? :xp:

Given what's coming out about this kid so far, he's more likely to have influences from the left than right. However, the overriding point is that a lot of people listen to stuff on both sides of the spectrum and all in between and still don't kill anyone. Kid was nuts and had a grudge against Giffords. Till I hear differently, that's what I'm running with on this.

Tommycat
01-11-2011, 06:49 PM
Rush has a point, I committed suicide in the 1980’s due to Queen’s Don’t try Suicide and Ozzy’s Suicide Solution….. I got better.

I'm just sayin that it makes just as much sense to blame the music he listens to as it does to blame the talking heads he may or may not have listened to. Actually it makes MORE sense to blame it as we are talking about a NUTJOB whom may or may not have even listened to the so called hate speech people in this thread have blamed. I mean this guy volunteered for Giffords at one time. Does it really make sense to say he listened to any of the stuff the Tea Party said? Or does it make sense that he would listen to music with anarchist/anti-government lyrics?

OR We could chalk it down as "Laughner was a very disturbed individual who did a horrible thing." That's what I'm sticking with.

mimartin
01-11-2011, 10:04 PM
I'm just sayin that it makes just as much sense to blame the music he listens to as it does to blame the talking heads he may or may not have listened to. Just seems a little hypocritical to me. Mr. Illegal Drugs gets upset when people blame him with little or no evidence, but he has no problem with blaming someone else with little or no evidence. However, I guess that is why people listen to Rush, to hear a self-absorbed blowhole make up stuff, take things completely out of context or present no evidence at all.

Tommycat
01-12-2011, 10:19 AM
Just seems a little hypocritical to me. Mr. Illegal Drugs gets upset when people blame him with little or no evidence, but he has no problem with blaming someone else with little or no evidence. However, I guess that is why people listen to Rush, to hear a self-absorbed blowhole make up stuff, take things completely out of context or present no evidence at all.

You're telling me that an ardent anti-drug abuse, habitual drug user, might be hypocritical? Gosh, call the evening news and schedule a press conference. A hypocrite might be hypocritical. This has to be a first.

Sorry... Since I didn't listen to him, I can't say for sure, but Dave(another musician friend of mine) said it was said in the context of a joke. As in "Why not blame the music he listened to? It makes more sense."

And actually the arguments presented by people here as to how the Tea Party could have influenced him could easily be turned into "Violent video games" or "Heavy Metal" in place of Tea Party. Punk rock in particular, has always been known to be anti-government. Rap, Metal, Punk, heck even some country songs, have lyrics that go far beyond anything the Tea Party said. But the same people who would defend games were quite willing to blame the Tea Party for maybe possibly unintentionally motivating this guy to do this.

As for the rhetoric, yeah, it's better suited for an elementary school yard, but it's nothing new.

Totenkopf
01-12-2011, 10:38 AM
The irony of the following is that as this putz makes this statement now, where was he back in '08 during the elction? It's not as if we've never had an assassination attempt prior to this or as if it's only been since the elction of one man...Obama...that things have gotten heated.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/11/sen_leahy_seething_rhetoric_has_gone_too_far.html


@TC/mim: I also heard the comments and agree w/TC's friend, it was posted as much as a hypothetical and joke. It's interesting, though, that libs and like minded (from Dupnik to Olberman to Matthews et al) only wish to excoriate "right-wingers" when this kind of tradgedy takes place, but will swear up and down that the mixed messages of pop culture have absolutely negligible influence on anything. Afterall, everyone knows that's only entertainment (except maybe the crazies :devsmoke: ). :rolleyes:

mimartin
01-12-2011, 11:35 AM
I agree it was a joke the first 20 seconds... Then it typical Rush fashion, it became fact and his evidence was it was mentioned on the radio. The same way he gets most of his evidence. Mention it in jest (for deniability purposes), but then treat it as fact.

I have to give credit to the Arizona Legislator they pass bills faster than anyone I’ve seen. SB 1101 passed their Senate and has already been signed by the governor. It will keep wbc “300 feet away from the property line of a residence, cemetery, funeral home, church or synagogue within one hour before or one hour after a funeral or burial service. “ Don’t really know about the constitutionality of the bill, nor do I really care.

Tommycat
01-12-2011, 12:02 PM
Just as a point here, IF we look at talking heads in the media as a culprit, we have to look at music as well. I mean I love Drowning Pool's Bodies, but the lyrics are(wow.. didn't realize how um... uncreative the lyrics were)

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Beaten why for
Can't take much more

Here we go...Here we go...Here we go

One - Nothing wrong with me
Two - Nothing wrong with me
Three - Nothing wrong with me
Four - Nothing wrong with me

One - Something's got to give
Two - Something's got to give
Three - Something's got to give
Now

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Push me again
This is the end

Here we go...Here we go...Here we go

One - Nothing wrong with me
Two - Nothing wrong with me
Three - Nothing wrong with me
Four - Nothing wrong with me

One - Something's got to give
Two - Something's got to give
Three - Something's got to give
Now

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Skin against skin blood and bone
You're all by yourself but you're not alone
You wanted in now you're here
Driven by hate consumed by fear

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

One - Nothing wrong with me
Two - Nothing wrong with me
Three - Nothing wrong with me
Four - Nothing wrong with me

One - Something's got to give
Two - Something's got to give
Three - Something's got to give
Now

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor


You can say that no sane person would get a killing message out of it, but then as we know the man was not stable. So if we are to say that there should be more civility on the airwaves in the event some crazy might act out on them, then we have a lot more cleaning up than just talk radio. And that would mean my favorite music stations would be virtually decimated. Then we have video games... KotOR without any dark side options? FPS gone? Sure no video game would turn a sane person crazy(except MAYBE Bloodlines Malkavian option :D), but we're talking about removing possible influences for crazy people here.

I heard on the radio this morning that there may be a reason Dupnik is so adamant about blaming talking heads. Apparently Jared had allegedly had numerous run ins with the Pima County Sheriffs, who told people he was under supervised care.
*unconfirmed source* (http://thechollajumps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/jared-loughner-is-a-product-of-sheriff-dupniks-office/)

Darth Avlectus
01-12-2011, 12:04 PM
Drowning pool parrot. :devsmoke:

uguXNL93fWg

mimartin
01-12-2011, 01:01 PM
but we're talking about removing possible influences for crazy people here.I'm not, because there is no way to know what may influence a mentally unstable person to violence. Nor am I pretending to know what influences Jared Loughner had or how those influences effected his decision to murder.

The one thing I will point out… I fail to see where Drowning Pool’s lyrics is actual actively giving anyone a target, nor do I see where, at least games I’ve played, are giving people targets. Again, I don’t know if any political talking heads gave Loughner the target, but their political rhetoric could provide targets.

Tommycat
01-12-2011, 01:41 PM
It is my belief that he had his target a long time before the talking heads said anything. I mean he volunteered FOR Giffords. Honestly any political ad could be used by someone unstable. Comedians jokes about shooting Rumsfeld could have led to the same thing. A sociopath can find targets anywhere. Ministry's song NWO(which used clips from Bush sr) could easily give people targets. NoFx, specifically targets Republicans. How about Green Day. What about all the pundit comedians who go after specific Republicans. How about the number of times Rush Limbaugh has been the target. How about Barack Obama specifically calling Republicans "the enemy" in his speeches to a Hispanic group. I mean if we're talking removing sources of possible targets, there's a whole lot of other media that needs to be cleaned up too.

And Drowning Pool I was using as just one example. I mean it could have been Megadeth, or any number of violence favoring songs. Heck it could have been "I'll be watching you" for all we know...

mimartin
01-12-2011, 02:13 PM
:rolleyes: Really have no clue what you are talking about... I wasn't pointing out one political party over the other… “Political talking heads” could mean either party. If I wanted to point out only republicans I would have written republican talking heads.

And forgive me if I do not take your beliefs word for it, especially considering the political talking heads have been around a long time or perhaps you forgot Clinton is going to destroy this nation or Bush is going to destroy this nation rhetoric?

Tommycat
01-12-2011, 02:45 PM
:rolleyes: Really have no clue what you are talking about... I wasn't pointing out one political party over the other… “Political talking heads” could mean either party. If I wanted to point out only republicans I would have written republican talking heads.

And forgive me if I do not take your beliefs word for it, especially considering the political talking heads have been around a long time or perhaps you forgot Clinton is going to destroy this nation or Bush is going to destroy this nation rhetoric?

As for not taking "my beliefs" as anything more, GOOD. It's just my belief and nothing more. Had I said, "He had his target before the talking heads named her" I'd be expected to provide proof. Since there is none, all I have is belief. NOW if I said, "He was generally anti-government but not necessarily following right wing ideology" and provided the ADL's link to his profile(found here (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/5961_72.htm) and here (http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/jared_lee_loughner.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeadin g_1)) then I would expect it to be read as more of an informed statement...

Interestingly enough, I see a lot of mention about the "Above Top Secret" web site. THAT'S IT!!! IT'S THE INTARWEBZ!!!

But seriously, what I was getting at was that focusing on the talking heads as the source for his anti-government stance, is counterproductive. She may have been a target simply because of proximity.

Totenkopf
01-12-2011, 03:16 PM
Mention it in jest (for deniability purposes), but then treat it as fact.

Yeah, the ole "half-in-jest, all in ernest" deal. Much of what passes for modern political humor is drenched in that idea. So, just how much time do you spend listening to Rush on the radio anyway?:xp: Almost reminds of me of the line in Private Parts where the guy tells the exec that the people who didn't like Stern were listening to him 2x as long as the ones that did....to see what he'd say next.

Tommycat
01-12-2011, 03:22 PM
Heh. We had a Rush Limbaugh drinking game. A shot for every time he mentions the Liberal Media. Two for every time he blamed Clinton.

Nobody could last past the second commercial break.

urluckyday
01-12-2011, 03:29 PM
Heh. We had a Rush Limbaugh drinking game. A shot for every time he mentions the Liberal Media. Two for every time he blamed Clinton.

Nobody could last past the second commercial break.

lol how long ago was that?

mimartin
01-12-2011, 03:47 PM
So, just how much time do you spend listening to Rush on the radio anyway?:xp: I’m don’t religiously listen to anything, but if I’m out during the day and there is nothing on Rome I turn it over to Rush. Same after work, I listen to sports radio, or the ipod, but if nothing better is on I will turn it over to Savage. Both have some interesting topic and gives you something to think about/research, but I would not want to go precisely by their interpretation of events. I also watch FalseNews more than any other “so-called” news agency. Again, I'm still doing a little research before believing a word they say.

A shot for every time he mentions the Liberal Media. We could have done that in Kavars not so long ago… ah the good ole days and the dearly departed.:cry8:

Working Class Hero
01-12-2011, 05:57 PM
Both have some interesting topic and gives you something to think about...
If you meant: I think about how utterly moronic they are, then yes; you were correct.

mimartin
01-12-2011, 06:08 PM
Well if I did not want to hear opinions that differ from my own, I would not be hanging around here either. It is only idiotic to listen if you get your information from that one source without scrutinize that information for yourself. Often hear that 1,000,000 people can’t be wrong, but in truth they can be if they are all getting their information from one source.

Tommycat
01-12-2011, 06:44 PM
lol how long ago was that?

01-02 somewhere abouts... Things get fuzzy during my heavy drinkin years.

@Working Class Hero: Funny. I usually tend to get more than one opinion, and contrast it with my own research. If you only get your information from one source or one slant, you miss a good portion of the information.

I mean if nothing else it's a good way to know what your conservative friends might have in store for you so you can be prepared with a rebuttal.

Working Class Hero
01-12-2011, 07:42 PM
Funny. I usually tend to get more than one opinion, and contrast it with my own research. If you only get your information from one source or one slant, you miss a good portion of the information.

I mean if nothing else it's a good way to know what your conservative friends might have in store for you so you can be prepared with a rebuttal.
No, thank you. I prefer to get my information from only one side: the intelligent one.

If you want to listen to racist, mentally impotent rednecks in pursuit of your concept of "balanced coverage", please, be my guest.

Darth Avlectus
01-12-2011, 07:51 PM
No, thank you. I prefer to get my information from only one side: the intelligent one.
You sir have convinced me that the most unbiased people are the ones who are one-sided.

If you want to listen to racist, mentally impotent rednecks in pursuit of your concept of "balanced coverage", please, be my guest.
Effing righteous brah! Take it to the man! Don't let the little things like ad hominems, poisoning the well, straw man, moving the goal posts, arrogance, pot kettle black, false equivocation, antics with semantics, false dilemma, slippery slope, or ad populum stop you. KILL WHITEY!

Working Class Hero
01-12-2011, 08:12 PM
You sir have convinced me that the most unbiased people are the ones who are one-sided.
I was never talking about unbiasedness. I intended to equate liberalism with intelligence, rush and savage with stupidity.


Effing righteous brah! Take it to the man! Don't let the little things like ad hominems, poisoning the well, straw man, moving the goal posts, arrogance, pot kettle black, false equivocation, antics with semantics, false dilemma, slippery slope, or ad populum stop you. KILL WHITEY!
:rolleyes:

I'm glad to know you can google logical fallacy lists.

urluckyday
01-12-2011, 08:22 PM
No, thank you. I prefer to get my information from only one side: the intelligent one.

Just a question...what source (besides the primary source of course) doesn't provide a biased outlook?

Darth Avlectus
01-12-2011, 08:29 PM
I was never talking about unbiasedness. I intended to equate liberalism with intelligence, rush and savage with stupidity.

Used to think that. I thought it meant of liberty and open mindedness.

Then I met someone who claimed as such but were all about censorship and could only cite what they disagreed with. Also this person hung with other people who listened to what he preached endlessly about how the 2nd amendment is outdated, and somesuch blather that "if someone pulled a gun on me I'd do the passivised thing and surrender", and yet ironically that was the first person to go on a power trip when put in charge of a construction project and get physical when things didn't go his way.

I also see the left is doing the same thing. Often more and more. Just to get back at anyone.

I'm glad to know you can google logical fallacy lists.
I didn't Google it, I mushware'd it. You know, that human hardware stuff between your ears.

Samnmax221
01-12-2011, 09:53 PM
There is nothing to be gained from watching FoxNews. There gets to be a point when a source goes so far overboard with lies, and over politicizing everything that you need to stop figuring what they have to say into your opinions. If you're going to pay Fox any attention than you might as well start listening to Voice of Korea too.

Sarah Palin started off the day by comparing being called out on her rhetoric to the historical plight of European Jews.
http://www.superevent.eu/images/Limbo.gif
HOW LOW CAN YOU GO? HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?

Totenkopf
01-12-2011, 10:05 PM
Sam....you are aware than no less than a Harvard educated uberlib like Alan Dershowitz has defended her use of the "blood libel" phrase. I think it's hilarious that a bunch of "balanced, intelligent and rational" uber lib yahoos have gone out of their way to attack Palin and then have the audacity to accuse her of making this about her. Not really sure who WCH thinks is so "intelligent", but it isn't any of Fox's competitors either (tv or print). :devsmoke:

Samnmax221
01-12-2011, 10:12 PM
Sam....you are aware than no less than a Harvard educated uberlib like Alan Dershowitz has defended her use of the "blood libel" phrase. I think it's hilarious that a bunch of "balanced, intelligent and rational" uber lib yahoos have gone out of their way to attack Palin and then have the audacity to accuse her of making this about her. Not really sure who WCH thinks is so "intelligent", but it isn't any of Fox's competitors either (tv or print). :devsmoke:
Let's step back from ranting about LIBERALS for a moment, and consider how inappropriate comparing her problems to the historic suffering of an entire race is, while she counts all the money she's raking in from retarded people.

I you think that any other mainstream media source in this country doesn't have better journalistic standards than Fox (HLN has better standards for Christ sake), you really are deluded.

Working Class Hero
01-13-2011, 09:27 AM
Used to think that. I thought it meant of liberty and open mindedness.

Then I met someone who claimed as such but were all about censorship and could only cite what they disagreed with. Also this person hung with other people who listened to what he preached endlessly about how the 2nd amendment is outdated, and somesuch blather that "if someone pulled a gun on me I'd do the passivised thing and surrender", and yet ironically that was the first person to go on a power trip when put in charge of a construction project and get physical when things didn't go his way.
I'm sorry that you had this experience, but it seems to me to just be an individual case of a hypocrite. Like I said earlier in this thread, some people are just BAD DUDES. (there mimiartin, you don't have to censor me :xp:)

It's sort of like saying: "I don't want to listen to <whatever band> because this guy I hate loves them."

I also see the left is doing the same thing. Often more and more. Just to get back at anyone.
Are you speaking about the media? If so, I suppose you're correct. Liberal news organizations do spend too much time sniping at Fox News that could be replaced with actual news coverage.

If we're talking about actual humanity, then I completely disagree. In my experience, I'd rather spend time/work with liberals than with conservatives. They're just more reasonable and more intelligent people.

I think it's hilarious that a bunch of "balanced, intelligent and rational" uber lib yahoos have gone out of their way to attack Palin and then have the audacity to accuse her of making this about her.
If ANYBODY equates themselves to European Jews, they deserve all the accusations and ridicule humanity can generate.

Not really sure who WCH thinks is so "intelligent", but it isn't any of Fox's competitors either (tv or print)
If you want specifics, I've found the Huffington Post and the BBC to be the best news organizations in terms of covering reality.

I didn't Google it, I mushware'd it. You know, that human hardware stuff between your ears. I'm going to google what this means. :xp:

Totenkopf
01-13-2011, 09:49 AM
If ANYBODY equates themselves to European Jews, they deserve all the accusations and ridicule humanity can generate.

Well, that settles it, holocaust should now be offically retired and or reserved for exclusively one usuage as well by that rationale. :rolleyes: Afterall, if Dershowitz has no problem.......


If you want specifics, I've found the Huffington Post and the BBC to be the best news organizations in terms of covering reality.



That you can include the huffpo as credible is very amusing.

Jae Onasi
01-13-2011, 10:24 AM
If you want to call people 'deluded' and 'irrational' go to the Senate where that kind of rude behavior is tolerated. It is not tolerated here. We value civil discussion to share ideas and opinions here so we can learn from each other. We do not value pounding people into the ground with ad hominems to 'win our arguments at any cost, including driving people away'. Thread locked while the moderating team discusses what to do with all this.

mimartin
01-13-2011, 12:45 PM
I’ve cleaned up most of the off topic source arguments; if anyone sees anything else please use the report button and not the reply button. I expected to come back this morning to see the spin from the Memorial Service and everyone’s impression on the President speech instead I get the tired FoxNews arguments.

Reopened thread, please stay on topic. There are other threads about sources in Kavars use them if you wish to continue that argument. If you continue to post in this thread please show a little respect to the OP PastramiX and stay on topic. Now I will go hit myself with 50 lashes for my mistake in mentioning FoxNews. I really thought we had gotten past that… had someone brought up ACORN it would have been just like old times.:(

Totenkopf
01-13-2011, 01:26 PM
Caught the aftermath of the speech and Krauthammer seemed overall impressed w/the prez's performance.

Jae Onasi
01-13-2011, 02:10 PM
Caught the aftermath of the speech and Krauthammer seemed overall impressed w/the prez's performance.

I listened to part of it, too, and Obama did a very nice job with a very difficult subject.

Impressing Krauthammer, especially if one is a more liberal Dem like Obama is, is very difficult.

purifier
01-13-2011, 03:20 PM
Yeah..speaking of that: the Memorial service/President's speech. I was watching all of that last night on the Fo.......*ahem!*:dev8: ..excuse me! THE NEWS too :D and was wondering why all of the sudden they decided to make a big thing out of this and hold a national memorial service, along with a presidental speech?

Now I realize a nine year old girl was killed in that senseless act of violence, but there are children everyday, not to mention in the past, in this country who get shot and killed sometimes intentionally or from a stray bullet just from gang violence or someone going postal. What about them? Don't remember ever seeing a memorial service such as this, with a presidental speech, held in their honor.

What makes this event so special, that a memorial service and a president's speech must be held in their honor?

Somebody enligthen me on that.......

mimartin
01-13-2011, 03:45 PM
For those that missed the speech, here is the text and even the video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/obama-arizona-memorial-sp_n_808335.html).

What makes this event so special, that a memorial service and a president's speech must be held in their honor?

Yes, Americans and people all over the world are killed every day in senseless violence. No one is saying that the people touched by this tragedy are any more or less special than them. This case isn’t any more tragic or heart wrenching than someone killed by a drunk driver. What does make this tragedy more public is the way it happened and who was involved. That has given this tragedy more media attention and put the events of Arizona into America’s living rooms. An armed gunman shoots up a meeting between a congresswoman and her constituents. BTW members of congress are required by law to meet with their constituents so this type of target is not going away. This is no different than past Presidents giving speeches after tragic events in this nation’s history.

Tommycat
01-13-2011, 03:48 PM
It made national news for two reasons.

1) This is the biggest assassination attempt in recent history in the US.
2) All the media buzz over what influenced him.

Gabriel Giffords is a US representative. Judge Roll was a Federal Judge. Honestly at this point the president NOT showing up would be a bad thing.

Darth Avlectus
01-13-2011, 03:56 PM
^^^Agreed. He is our president and ought to speak. Just wouldn't be right if he didn't.

@ WCH I'll get this via PM.

Darth InSidious
01-13-2011, 04:34 PM
Obamacare is designed to euthanise native white American descendants of the Jaredites and Obama is Satan's boyfriend. :mad:

Tommycat
01-13-2011, 04:40 PM
Obamacare is designed to euthanise native white American descendants of the Jaredites and Obama is Satan's boyfriend. :mad:

Who let the Westborough Baptist Church in here?

purifier
01-13-2011, 05:07 PM
It made national news for two reasons.

1) This is the biggest assassination attempt in recent history in the US.
2) All the media buzz over what influenced him.

Gabriel Giffords is a US representative. Judge Roll was a Federal Judge. Honestly at this point the president NOT showing up would be a bad thing.


Didn't know one of the victims was a Federal Judge, that makes a difference to me. I should really pay attention to what's being said in the news these days. :(




Yes, Americans and people all over the world are killed every day in senseless violence. No one is saying that the people touched by this tragedy are any more or less special than them. This case isn’t any more tragic or heart wrenching than someone killed by a drunk driver. What does make this tragedy more public is the way it happened and who was involved. That has given this tragedy more media attention and put the events of Arizona into America’s living rooms. An armed gunman shoots up a meeting between a congresswoman and her constituents. BTW members of congress are required by law to meet with their constituents so this type of target is not going away. This is no different than past Presidents giving speeches after tragic events in this nation’s history.


Yep...I see now, what your saying Mimartin (especially since one of the victims was a Federal Judge).


Thank you both for the info, my bad. ;)

Jaevyn
01-13-2011, 07:55 PM
Sarah Palin started off the day by comparing being called out on her rhetoric to the historical plight of European Jews.

Yes, compare rhetoric to events of the holocaust. I'm sure that not only European Jews will be offended by her latest remarks.

Darth Avlectus
01-13-2011, 08:45 PM
Obamacare is designed to euthanise native white American descendants of the Jaredites
:rofl:

and Obama is Satan's boyfriend. :mad:
Why you Westborough Baptist! :fist:

Tommycat
01-14-2011, 09:05 PM
Okay, this is ridiculous. I mean honestly people are blaming literally everything Republican. Now, they are blaming SB1070 for the shooting... What the... REALLY? Did I miss something and Laughner was opposed to SB1070, and Giffords was FOR it? Or was it the other way around.

Was it because of his "I hope that you are literate" comments? Because he called his white friends illiterate, which indicates that those comments had little to do with citizenship.

Sheesh. Instead of doing as Obama said and coming together, people are doing EXACTLY what he asked us NOT to do. Using this tragedy to further separate ourselves. The NPR contributor that used it as an opportunity to push her "brown people" agenda. Heck she said that she sighed in relief that it was a "gringo" instead of a Latino last name. Ya know what, I wasn't looking for it to be ANY race.

Besides, that debate(which has NOTHING to do with this crime) was not about Latinos, but about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! I know it's a hard concept for her to grasp, but we're FOR legal immigrants. Just, ya know, not a fan of people breaking laws...

So lets run down the list, so far it's been:
The Tea Party
Talk Radio(Rush Limbaugh specifically)
Sarah Palin
And now SB1070?

Sheesh!

Jae Onasi
01-14-2011, 10:58 PM
The Republicans and Tea-Partiers are not the only ones who use target maps and "target" rhetoric.

Giffords was on Daily Kos' "hit list" (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568) in 2008 for not being liberal enough.

The Democratic Leadership Council (http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171) had bullseye targets pasted all over the US map in 2004:
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Demtargetmap.gif

Charles Krauthammer wrote a most insightful article that appeared in the Washington Post today. Since he is a board certified psychiatrist who received his MD from Harvard Medical School, in addition to being a Pulitzer-prize-winning writer, I take his opinion on Loughner's condition seriously, with the caveat that one can't truly diagnose long-distance. That being said, anyone who's taken any kind of abnormal psychology course will recognize that Loughner very likely is a paranoid schizophrenic.

Here is the text of Krauthammer's op-ed column:

By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, January 12, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(link here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html))

Loughner is, rather bluntly, bat-sh#t crazy. Blaming it on Palin, the Daily Kos, or anyone else BUT Loughner is ill-informed at best and disingenuous at worst.

Totenkopf
01-14-2011, 10:59 PM
@TC: I see the pro-2nd Amendment/NRA types being added (despite Giffords being pro-gun) and maybe even the 1st Amendment as well (which encompasses the first 3 on your list).

@Jae--I especially liked that last line in the piece.

mimartin
01-14-2011, 11:04 PM
Yea, Yea all liberals are blaming the Republicans and the poor right wing is not blaming the liberals. :rolleyes: Guess someone forgot to send the memo to Rush.

Totenkopf
01-15-2011, 01:13 AM
Most of what I've seen and heard has been the right slamming the left for the sleazy move of immediately pinning the shooting on "right-wing rhetoric". The "left" can't really complain when they cast the first stone. But seriously, who's saying ALL liberals anyway.. it's mostly the professional left-wing punditry and political types that keep picking this fight.

Q
01-15-2011, 08:44 AM
This thread is a wonderful example of just how pervasive the propaganda has become throughout the media; on both the left and right.

It's almost as if they want us to start killing each other. :conspire:

On the bright side, maybe this incident will cause some people to realize that their own vaunted news source is just as full of crap as the one that they've been deriding ad nauseam.

mimartin
01-15-2011, 09:56 AM
Most of what I've seen and heard...Perhaps Evil Q is correct, but it is our own bias that let us see and hear only what we want to see and hear.

JediAthos
01-15-2011, 10:37 AM
On the bright side, maybe this incident will cause some people to realize that their own vaunted news source is just as full of crap as the one that they've been deriding ad nauseam.

I can't stand the national "news" outlets in the U.S. Once upon a time they may have been just news stations, but now they're not anything resembling journalists.

Typically I get my news from the AP or Reuters or I've even been known to listen to the BBC from time to time...I find much less rhetoric and opinion in these sources.

@thread: While I'm not opposed to the thought that words can be powerful enough to influence people...the people that those words would influence to commit violent acts have to already be unstable imo. As was pointed out by the article that Jae posted Loughner was already nuts...nobody drove him to this except the voices his own delusional head.

Totenkopf
01-15-2011, 10:45 AM
Well, seeing as how I've heard from "both" sides, I guess they're all arguably full of crap. Personal biases notwithstanding, being first out the gate to pin the event on someone's rhetoric (used by both sides, really....see Jae's piece by Krauthammer), doesn't give that side the moral highground to complain when the other side fires back. It would be nice (though maybe boring) if both sides could get along w/o this fractious bs getting in the way of doing the "peoples' work".

mimartin
01-15-2011, 11:31 AM
(..see Jae's piece by Krauthammer)Not exactly an unbiased source when you consider Rush wanted to name his future child after the man, well until now. Seems once you say something nice and accurate about a liberal you get on Rush’s crap list. (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Rush-Limbaugh-No-Longer-Planning-to-Name-Firstborn-Krauthammer-2978)
:xp:

Tommycat
01-15-2011, 01:21 PM
Oh mim, I could easily have thrown out the things that the conservatives have blamed it on, but those are pretty much on talk radio, and not really making it to CNN.

Here's what the Conservatives have blamed
Mental disorder(pretty much steadily)
Drug use(makes more sense than blaming Palin)
Liberals(thanks Rush)
Liberal media(thanks Rush)
His lack of religion(Thanks Rush)
Music(thanks again Rush).

But honestly what most of the talking heads on the conservative side have been doing(Rush aside) is saying "Woah there buddy. Take a look at yourselves before you start blaming us. This guy was a nutjob. Politics didn't have anything to do with it." Just as I've done here. We've been on the defensive from the start. Conservatives have been the ones attacked repeatedly. I haven't heard the conservatives actually attack anyone so much as say, "It doesn't make sense to blame us, he was called Liberal by his friend." At most conservatives have called Laughner a Liberal(which is not true, but an understandable mistake).

That's been my point through this entire thread. Blaming it on a political party is completely irresponsible until you can validate that he had a connection to that party. And as more news has come out, we have seen nothing to connect him to conservatives(or Liberals, but since this thread started out being hostile to Conservatives, and nearly every accusation has been from the Left...). Nothing to connect him to the Tea Party. Nothing to connect him to the "gunsights" posted in the top level.

Quite frankly it would be nice if those who used this as an opportunity to bash the conservatives would be big enough to admit they were wrong. But they won't because SOMEHOW it had to be the conservatives' pervasive hate speech that pushed Laughner to do this. In their minds conservatives are such a wrong in this world that it's okay to throw poo at them whether true or not. In other words, they are Rush Limbaughs of the Left.

Totenkopf
01-15-2011, 02:01 PM
Not exactly an unbiased source when you consider Rush wanted to name his future child after the man, well until now. Seems once you say something nice and accurate about a liberal you get on Rush’s crap list. (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Rush-Limbaugh-No-Longer-Planning-to-Name-Firstborn-Krauthammer-2978)
:xp:

In a guest post on National Review's The Corner blog, Krauthammer explains this is the just result he'd been hoping for. "Now you know why I returned Rush’s volley on Fox last night: I’ve just saved that poor little girl a world of hurt."

At least he's got a sense of humor. :p His criticisms are valid, though, regardless of whatever bias you seem to think he has. Still, I believe I saw him a few weeks ago say he'd probably lost his conservative "street cred" over something else he praised/agreed w/BO over (don't remember specific issue).

Jae Onasi
01-15-2011, 02:22 PM
This thread is a wonderful example of just how pervasive the propaganda has become throughout the media; on both the left and right.

(emphasis mine here)
I totally agree. Had this been a Republican that got shot, I'm sure the GOP would have done exactly the same and posted the DLC target map all over the net.

The only reason I posted that was to show that the Dems were utilizing this to try to slam the Tea-Partiers. Had the situation been reversed, however, I have no illusions that the far right would have used it to slam liberal Dems, too. I think if that had been the case, Krauthammer would have slammed the GOP for doing that, too. He may have gotten more conservative as he gains years, but he's nothing if not honest in his assessments.

It's a sad commentary on today's "journalism".

Working Class Hero
01-16-2011, 01:27 AM
We've been on the defensive from the start.
Lolz.
It never ceases to amaze me how the right is always the victim.


Caught the aftermath of the speech and Krauthammer seemed overall impressed w/the prez's performance.
I'm sorry, but I have to say this:

The very first post you made about the speech was about what somebody else thought of it. Believe it or not, if I wanted to know Krauthammer thought about it I would go to his site.
I want to know what you think about it. :)

--I didn't really think the speech was that great, to be honest. I understand fully that da prez has to make a public showing, since a congresswoman almost died, but I don't really care about the other people. I'm sorry, but people die all the time and in greater numbers.

At times, I felt like I was hearing George W speak. Obama really tried that American patriotism rhetoric, which always leaves me feeling ill.
Also, it's pathetic when our president calls America a democracy. Clearly, he needs to re-take high school history.

Sabretooth
01-16-2011, 01:44 AM
Also, it's pathetic when our president calls America a democracy. Clearly, he needs to re-take high school history.

http://h.imagehost.org/0179/not_sure_if_person_serious.jpg

Working Class Hero
01-16-2011, 01:52 AM
Uh....I guess you're being serious asking if I'm not being serious?

Unless my dictionary and history professors have failed me, we (America) have a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Sabretooth
01-16-2011, 03:10 AM
Unless my dictionary and history professors have failed me, we (America) have a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

I think your president is referring to democracy as in the doctrine and not the hard-and-fast political system, duder.

Besides, America is the world's largest exporter of freedom and democracy, everyone knows that.

Totenkopf
01-16-2011, 12:30 PM
I'm sorry, but I have to say this:

The very first post you made about the speech was about what somebody else thought of it. Believe it or not, if I wanted to know Krauthammer thought about it I would go to his site.
I want to know what you think about it. :)


Well, this is what I posted after and was responding to specifically:
I’ve cleaned up most of the off topic source arguments; if anyone sees anything else please use the report button and not the reply button. I expected to come back this morning to see the spin from the Memorial Service and everyone’s impression on the President speech instead I get the tired FoxNews arguments.

Since I obviously missed the speech, I couldn't have posted my own impression of it anyway. ;)

Unless my dictionary and history professors have failed me, we (America) have a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

I find that mistake annoying as well.

mimartin
01-16-2011, 03:14 PM
I find that mistake annoying as well.

It wasn't a mistake... I believe Sabre hit the nail on the head.

Totenkopf
01-16-2011, 06:35 PM
Wasn't addressing whether BO was taking some kind of license w/the term, rather that a lot of people often call America a democracy when in fact it isn't.

mimartin
01-16-2011, 10:04 PM
60 Minutes had an interesting story on Loughner tonight. The video isn’t available at the moment, but if you get a chance I thought it was an enlightening story (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml).

One of the most interesting things I learned was that he went into Safeway to get change for a $20. to pay a $15. cab fare. Timeline (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/14/national/main7247244.shtml?source=related_story&tag=related)

60 Minutes also talked to experts with the Secret Service that pretty much said most assassinations have little to nothing to do the politics.

Tommycat
01-17-2011, 12:33 AM
Actually calling it a Republic is only part of it. Yes, we are a democracy, but specifically we are a Democratic Republic.

Lolz.
It never ceases to amaze me how the right is always the victim.
Not saying the right is always the victim. But from the beginning of this the Right has been demonized. So, it is fair to say that from the beginning of this, the Right has been on the defensive. They've had to battle against the near constant assault of people like yourself who just want another reason to hate the Right.

I agree with Jae though that if it had been one of the right that was targeted, they probably would have done the same thing.

I just hope that I would be intellectually honest enough to not blame the Left or their rhetoric with no facts.

Jae Onasi
01-17-2011, 03:55 PM
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-tucson-arizona)

The Tea Party promised to take America back from the clutches of commie Muslims, and they're doing it one step at a time; frontier justice-style baby. :mex1:


You ain't going to find that ad on Palin's website now, as she's probably avoiding any implication of motivating/condoning a political assassination and/or terrorist attack. But just in case:


I'll leave you to draw the conclusions, friend-o. ;)

This is the OP, minus the pictures. This is an accusation by someone who is liberal, directly accusing a conservative of inciting a senseless, insane act of brutality. His comments mirror a lot of what was published nearly immediately after the shooting.

This accusation has since been proven utterly, completely wrong. I have yet to see anyone apologize for making these irresponsible charges, and I find this to be a sad commentary on (mostly journalistic) "integrity".

mimartin
01-17-2011, 04:28 PM
This accusation has since been proven utterly, completely wrong.Please show me the irrefutable evidence that has proven anything about the case.

While I would agree the circumstantial evidence I’ve seen show that blaming the Tea Party or any political ideas extremely far-fetched at best. I have seen nothing that has proven anything as fact.

At least with Jared Loughner still alive authorities my actually get to the facts instead of all the mere speculation to what was or was not the cause.

Totenkopf
01-17-2011, 05:04 PM
Given that the guy is bat guano crazy, not really sure what you could trust....regardless of whether his statements ended up appearing to implicate the left or the right.

Q
01-17-2011, 05:55 PM
The Beatles told him to do it. It's right there in the White Album.

At this point the above is just as likely as the Tea Party. :giveup:

Yellow journalism at its finest.

mimartin
01-17-2011, 06:02 PM
Given that the guy is crazyIs that your professional opinion Dr. Totenkopf? That could be the cause, but even that hasn’t been proven yet.

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 12:27 PM
Please show me the irrefutable evidence that has proven anything about the case.

thing that made the OP completely utterly wrong.
Tea Party: Laughner had nothing to do with the TEA party. His closest friends have stated that he didn't even listen to talk radio. In fact as has been shown, he was completely OUT of the political spectrum. So the accusation that the TEA party set this up is misinformed at best.

Not to mention that most of the talk radio I listened to here in AZ actually PRAISED GIFFORDS(:eek: can it be so?) for her going against her own party. She was a blue-dog Democrat.

Then there's evidence to show that Laughner may have targeted her as far back as 2007. Prior to the TEA party and when Sarah Palin was just the Governor of Alaska.

mimartin
01-18-2011, 12:33 PM
His closest friends have stated that he didn't even listen to talk radio. Really? That is a fact? I thought his friends said he cut the off a few months ago. So just how do they know anything about what he has been doing the few months before the shooting.

Seems a little hypocritical that people are upset over others speculation, but want their speculation treated as fact.

Plus what you all seem to be forgetting is this wasn’t made political by the bias liberal media. Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is the one that brought it up. Sorry, but most people would assume (incorrectly it would seem) that a Sheriff would not talk to the media about a case without some evidence.

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 12:44 PM
Okay, so in a few months time he decided to start listening to talk radio? That's a bit of a stretch. It also happens to be AFTER the election when the Tea party switched to looking forward to the 2012 election.

Nothing in the sites he visited points to the TEA party.

Working Class Hero
01-18-2011, 12:53 PM
If I heard correctly, in early 2007 Loughner was against Giffords. In the CBS special they said we went to one of her rallies and wrote "Die bitch" on a poster.

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 12:59 PM
If I heard correctly, in early 2007 Loughner was against Giffords. In the CBS special they said we went to one of her rallies and wrote "Die <female dog>" on a poster.
edited, just in case

Not sure about that one. BUT I do know from the report by a friend of his that he went to an event in 2007 and asked her, "How do you know words mean anything?" And she responded to him in Spanish. From there he got very agitated, and that may have been when he decided to write "Die <rhymes with Witch>"

mimartin
01-18-2011, 01:00 PM
Okay, so in a few months time he decided to start listening to talk radio? That's a bit of a stretch. I never said he did. I don’t know what he did during that three months. If you believe his parents he acted perfectly normal despite his friends saying otherwise. The point is I don’t know and neither do you. Saying he listen to talk radio is disingenuous, but saying he did not is just as disingenuous since there is no way of know either way.

Nothing in the sites he visited points to the TEA party.I never wrote he did... I have no clue what he did, but neither do you or anyone else. That is my entire point.

I don't think politics have anything to do with this, but my opinion is not fact and your opinion is not a fact either.

jrrtoken
01-18-2011, 01:02 PM
This is the OP, minus the pictures. This is an accusation by someone who is liberal, directly accusing a conservative of inciting a senseless, insane act of brutality. His comments mirror a lot of what was published nearly immediately after the shooting.Thanks, Jae; I abduct and murder children for their coveted baking blood, too. :rolleyes:

This accusation has since been proven utterly, completely wrong. I have yet to see anyone apologize for making these irresponsible charges, and I find this to be a sad commentary on (mostly journalistic) "integrity".Please indicate where I claimed that the theory was immutably factual and accurate. I suggested it as a possible, although indirect, motive for the murder. As of writing, the profile of Loughner suggests that he indiscriminately borrowed from any number of influences to form a hodge-podge manifesto that didn't conform to any particular contemporary political ideology. I doubt that he even identified with the Tea Party movement, but for all anyone knows, trying to discern what truly influenced him and what was simply "filler" material is becoming a folly, as per his psychological profile.

For example, the Department of Homeland Security suggested (http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/355125) that Loughner might have been influenced by a white-supremicist publication. Do we know that he was influenced by said publication? No, and in fact, the DHS later said (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/dhs_has_not_determined_possibl.html) that they haven't found any apparent connection between the two. Does this mean that the original speculation was absolutely pointless, or evidence has been found that completely debunks the theory? No and no. The initial Tea Party implication would also fall under this paradigm.

mimartin
01-18-2011, 01:13 PM
If I heard correctly, in early 2007 Loughner was against Giffords. In the CBS special they said we went to one of her rallies and wrote "Die bitch" on a poster.

He wrote that on a Thank You for Attending note he received from Giffords from 2007. The police have the letter as evidence. I think that speaks to his mentality that he would have kept that letter since 2007. His friends state that he was upset that Giffords would not/could not answer his question at the rally he attended. 'What is government if words have no meaning?'

The 60 Minutes video is now online. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7253008n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel)

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 01:26 PM
@mim: That is not what the media nor the OP, nor Sheriff Dupnik have been saying. They have used this as an attack on the conservative talk stations and TEA party. They have repeatedly switched from one conservative outlet to another and even now have switched to using it to support the DREAM Act(what the heck the DREAM Act had to do with the shooting is FAR beyond me). I'm pointing out that there is no evidence to support the claim that the TEA party/Conservatives had anything to do with the shooting. It's about like claiming that he was acting in self defense even though there is no evidence to support that claim.

Sorry for the edit:
@Pastramix:
No, there is evidence of him having read Mein Kampf a book usually read by white supremacists. Where is your evidence which supports him being associated with/being inspired by the TEA party.

Totenkopf
01-18-2011, 01:38 PM
Seems a little hypocritical that people are upset over others speculation, but want their speculation treated as fact.

Plus what you all seem to be forgetting is this wasn’t made political by the bias liberal media. Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is the one that brought it up. Sorry, but most people would assume (incorrectly it would seem) that a Sheriff would not talk to the media about a case without some evidence.

Doesn't really matter if you think Dupnik's comment was the spark that ignited the far-left libel machine or not. It should have been disregarded by them out of the gate as a bad case of sheer speculation by a govt official who should have known better than to elicit that kind if opinion on national tv. What the "left-wing" media has been doing is attempt to poison the well and muzzle their opposition with an avalanche of negative commentary to obscure whatever the real reasons Jared had or didn't have. Doesn't matter to their template. It's why you get people like Daisy Hernandez on NPR making race related comments about the identity of the killer. Imagine if some conservative journalist had done that with regard to either Loughner or Hasan... "Thank God it was a hispanic/muslim...." (remember, these wre many of the same people urging us not to jump to conclusions about Hasan's motivations right after that incident) Or the continuous drum of tv and print media pundits trying to pin this on the Tea Party or SP (conveniently ignoring the nature of American political rhetoric for most of our history). It's also worth noting that it's the liberal dems that always go for the "Fairness Doctrine" card in incidents like this....any excuse to muzzle their oppositions' pov. The only thing that's really hypocritical here is the actions by many on the left who have told us to be cautious about determining influences on people like Hasan but can't contain themselves from pinning blame on the TP or other conservative sources in this case.

@mim--"Dr."? Retract those claws, catman. :xp: If you can say you've never waited for a "professional opinion" before writing someone off as crazy b/c of what they've done....

mimartin
01-18-2011, 01:48 PM
Well you were commenting where I had asked Jae for irrefutable evidence that it “has since been proven utterly, completely wrong.” While I agree that it is beyond far-fetched to blame any political philosophy, I have seen nothing to make that belief fact.

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 01:58 PM
Well then, for that matter, we could easily blame the Left for providing her as a terget.
Daily Kos Link (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568)
We could blame Anti-Flag which he previously stated was his favorite band... and very leftist. Link to interview (http://punxrukus.blogspot.com/2010/02/anti-flag-interview-with-justin-sane.html)

At least THOSE we have evidence in support of. As of yet, there is no evidence that suggests he was influenced by the TEA party.

jrrtoken
01-18-2011, 02:00 PM
No, there is evidence of him having read Mein Kampf a book usually read by white supremacists. Where is your evidence which supports him being associated with/being inspired by the TEA party.I don't have any empirical evidence to confirm or deny a link between Loughner and Tea Party literature. I also don't have the ability to probe other's minds, revealing their true motivations. Unlike myself, you seem to posses both, or simply a talent for reapplying standards per convenience.

urluckyday
01-18-2011, 02:06 PM
Is that your professional opinion Dr. Totenkopf? That could be the cause, but even that hasn’t been proven yet.

um, have you seen the guy's videos? He's insane.

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 02:07 PM
I don't have any empirical evidence to confirm or deny a link between Loughner and Tea Party literature. I also don't have the ability to probe other's minds, revealing their true motivations. Unlike myself, you seem to posses both, or simply a talent for reapplying standards per convenience.

But you had enough evidence to point the finger squarely at the TEA party. As I have said, there is no evidence that he was inspired by the TEA party. You threw out accusations with no proof.

Hey how about this daily Kos rant
http://www.wnd.com/images/110108kos.jpg
Note the date. It, like Palin's target map, has since been removed.

jrrtoken
01-18-2011, 02:19 PM
But you had enough evidence to point the finger squarely at the TEA party. As I have said, there is no evidence that he was inspired by the TEA party. You threw out accusations with no proof.Besides the previous vandalism of Giffords' office, and a general sense of political dislike of Giffords by some, and now the shooting, there's enough to at least be suspicious of some sort of pseudo-association. Your insistence that lack of current proof equates to a false argument in this context is equally damning as suggesting that there is a direct implication between the two (which, if you've been comprehensively reading my posts, isn't what I've been saying at all). I suppose that this going to play out as a weak vs. strong (a)theism debacle.

Note the date. It, like Palin's target map, has since been removed.'Kay. Your point is what exactly? That the author might possess tendencies to murder Giffords? That could be plausible, but I don't really know either way.

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 02:38 PM
Besides the previous vandalism of Giffords' office, and a general sense of political dislike of Giffords by some, and now the shooting, there's enough to at least be suspicious of some sort of pseudo-association. Your insistence that lack of current proof equates to a false argument in this context is equally damning as suggesting that there is a direct implication between the two (which, if you've been comprehensively reading my posts, isn't what I've been saying at all). I suppose that this going to play out as a weak vs. strong (a)theism debacle.

'Kay. Your point is what exactly? That the author might possess tendencies to murder Giffords? That could be plausible, but I don't really know either way.

Yes, there was a strong dislike, but it was not limited to the Right(which was the point of the image). Despite the Left targeting her, damning her, being inflamed at her, you chose to point to the Right. And it's funny that you point to the vandalism. Seeing as how that incident was never solved. So while it MAY have been a rightist upset over the health care debate(which the timing might suggest) there is also no proof that it was the Right.

Totenkopf
01-18-2011, 02:43 PM
@PastramiX--should be fairly obvious. The post (and site) could just as easily have affected JL's thinking as you seem to believe the TP did. Both as links to his behavior are equally tenuous at best.

..there's enough to at least be suspicious of some sort of pseudo-association.

To anything, really. So, why are you so fixated on the TP? It could just as easily be openly racist groups, left-wing wackos disenchanted w/Gifford's voting record...

mimartin
01-18-2011, 03:33 PM
um, have you seen the guy's videos? He's insane.
Not in AZ.

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 03:44 PM
That's because people in AZ are crazy already... er... wait... I live in AZ. I rest my case?

Actually calling him crazy might not be accurate. Considering people have said that he used drugs, including hallucinogens, and has been arrested on drug charges, there is a possibility that his rambling on Youtube could be related to heavy self medication.

mimartin
01-18-2011, 04:39 PM
I was speaking more along the lines of the insanity defense in AZ.

I’m pretty sure he will be charged by both the State and Federal Governments. AZ does not allow the insanity defense and it is a tall order in assassination cases on the federal side of things.

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 05:32 PM
Actually he likely ruined the chances of getting an insanity defense when he stated he understood the charges against him. The insanity defense is used far more in TV and movies than in real life. The legal definition of insanity is way different than the clinical definition. If a person knows what they are doing is illegal they are not legally insane. They can be completely crazy and still know what they are doing is illegal.

Of course Clark v Arizona established that there was no "right" to an insanity defense. And Clark thought the person he shot was a space alien.

I feel like I should put "I Am Not A Lawyer" somewhere in here though.

urluckyday
01-18-2011, 08:22 PM
That's because people in AZ are crazy already... er... wait... I live in AZ. I rest my case?

Actually calling him crazy might not be accurate. Considering people have said that he used drugs, including hallucinogens, and has been arrested on drug charges, there is a possibility that his rambling on Youtube could be related to heavy self medication.

Okay...so either he's either insane...or just a complete idiot.

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 08:54 PM
Okay...so either he's either insane...or just a complete idiot.

From my experience, those two are not mutually exclusive.

mimartin
01-18-2011, 09:18 PM
Those two pretty much describe my entire family. :xp:

Tommycat
01-18-2011, 10:22 PM
Those two pretty much describe my entire family. :xp:

We must be related lol