Congresswoman Giffords Shot UPDATE: Obama Reports She Has Opened Her Eyes

US Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D -AZ) was shot earlier today. Here’s Hot Air’s headline:

Breaking: Congresswoman, five others shot in Tucson, AZ; Update: NPR reports six dead; Update: KOLD reports Giffords still in surgery; Update: Federal judge dead; Update: Gunman identified; Update: Giffords expected to pull through

The bad news, and it’s really bad news, is that the Congresswoman, a Federal judge, several others were shot; some have died. The good news, which isn’t as good, is that the Congresswoman is expected to survive, the gunman was captured and identified.

This man needs to be executed.

And I pray those who were shot and have so far survived do have a full and speedy recovery.

UPDATE: Hot Air has posted what appear to be the culprit’s YouTube “manifestos.” Likely, they won’t last long. Here’s one of the three:

The guy sounds very much like a serious nutjob and a serious anarchist.

UPDATE 12JAN2010: HT aotc

449 Comments

  1. Credit where it’s due, the earliest report I saw came from NPR. The shooter is apparently a young white guy who’s obsessed with what he refers to as English grammar. At this early stage he sounds like a genuine whack job.

  2. Political event from a few months ago:

    “6/12/10
    Get on target for victory in November
    Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office
    Shoot a fully automatic M-16 with Jesse Kelly”

    Sharon Angle: “Well it’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

    Sounds like a whack job? Sounds to me like someone who listens to Republican politicians.

  3. This man needs to be executed.
    [...]
    The guy sounds very much like a serious nutjob

    Perhaps you can save on health-care costs by also executing those with MS, Down Syndrome or HIV as well?

    What a Christian you are, PB…

  4. From espn:

    An assailant opened fire outside a grocery store in Tuscon, Ariz., while Giffords met with constituents, killing a 9-year-old boy and a federal judge and wounding several others in a rampage that rattled the nation.

  5. The Republicans better hope this sort of thing turns out to be just a coincidence.

    (Except for DMW, who is probably celebrating right now, given his previous rhetoric)

  6. In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

    No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver!

    No! I won’t trust in God!

    Two of his favorite books are the one written by Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto.

    Nope, not one of us.

  7. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. Early reports don’t make much sense and attempts to ascribe political motive now reveal little about the shooter and speak volumes about the motivations of the gutter-snipes. It’s a Rorschach test for intelligence and character.

    Caution now will will be noted and recognized, while bilious nonsense will indelibly mark out the fools for well deserved ridicule.

  8. Naggy, you’ve made a first class assclown out of yourself.

    Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi, do you suspect Congressional Democrats out for revenge are behind the shooting? Or, how about the NPR hit squad, did they put out a contract on Giffords? After all, she appeared on FOX NEWS even after they knocked-off Juan Williams.

  9. Nope, not one of us.

    Oh, really? Did you miss his gold standard bit at the end of his rant? Did you miss the “U.S Constitution! U.S. Constitution!” stuff, too? Did you conveniently forget that this very week the Republicans engaged in a transparent & maudlin bit of showboating about reading the Constitution aloud, while cutting out parts of it they didn’t like? Let me get this straight: crazy guy yelling at a KFC in Australia, but he’s Islamic: he represents his religion, no question about it. Crazy guy who sounds exactly like your standard Glenn Beck watcher, well, the Glenn Beck part can be ignored: he’s clearly insane!

    You people have no shame at all. For people who talk a good line about taking responsibility, you sure do fail to man up every. Single. Time some guy who’s been listening to your “lock & load!” rhetoric goes out and locks & loads.

  10. the gunman seems to be obsessed with mind control. and how the govt is deceiving us and on and on … to the point of obsession

    dont we have someone here that rants and raves about that sort of stuff..

  11. Here are the rest of his favorite books, which ethics-free Mr. Hitchcock saw fit to ignore:

    Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

    Animal Farm – an anti-communist novel by Orwell. Plato’s Republic: guess which method of government has its genesis in this book? It’s very convenient for you to define this guy as “not one of us” based on two books out of a broader list. Presumably you’ll be burning your copy of Farenheit 451, by Tea Party-sympathizing Ray Bradbury, since it’s now been seen in the company of Marx.

    Or you could try learning how logic works. Hope springs eternal!

  12. Frances Fox Piven Rings in The New Year By Calling for Violent Revolution

    Posted on December 31, 2010 at 4:33pm by Jonathon M. Seidl

    She’s considered by many as the grandmother of using the American welfare state to implement revolution. Make people dependent on the government, overload the government rolls, and once government services become unsustainable, the people will rise up, overthrow the oppressive capitalist system, and finally create income equality. Collapse the system and create a new one. That‘s the simplified version of Frances Fox Piven’s philosophy originally put forth in the pages of The Nation in the 60s.

    Now, as the new year ball drops, Piven is at it again, ringing in 2011 with renewed calls for revolution.

    In a chilling and almost unbelievable editorial again in The Nation (”Mobilizing the Jobless,” January 10/17, 2011 edition), she calls on the jobless to rise up in a violent show of solidarity and force. As before, those calls are dripping with language of class struggle. Language she and her late husband Richard Cloward made popular in the 60s.

    More here for the call for violence

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/frances-fox-piven-rings-in-the-new-year-by-calling-for-violent-revolution/

    Looks like the shooter took her advice.

  13. I don’t know about you guys but as soon as I heard Loughner accused the government of mind control my first thought was : “So that’s Blu’s last name”.

  14. Shorter Yorkshire: Democrats do it too!

    Let’s revisit how leftist the Nazis were. In fact, I’d like to see a Republican walk into a neo-Nazi gathering and explain to all of them how liberal they are. How supportive of women’s rights, tolerance, integration, etc. Or how liberal their favorite guy, Hitler, was. Do it! Show us liberals what Nazis are really like!


  15. Sarah Palin Blamed by Bloggers for Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords

    Some prominent liberal bloggers wasted little time before politicizing the horrific and tragic shooting of a congresswoman in Arizona on Saturday.

    Almost immediately after the nation learned of the shooting of Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and several others (including a federal judge), a few prominent liberal web writers sought to blame Sarah Palin and other conservatives for the action.

    Linking to a map of U.S. House districts that Sarah Palin’s pac wanted to “target” during the 2010 mid-term elections — which sadly included crosshairs over Rep. Giffords’ district (among others) — DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas Tweeted, “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.”

    The liberal blog Firedog Lake also went there.

    (Palin has deleted the image from her website, and issued a short statement on the shooting, writing on her Facebook page: “My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today’s tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.”

    Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias Tweeted out several other examples of “violent rhetoric,” including Rep. Michele Bachman saying, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous” to block climate change legislation.

    Tea party activists are reportedly already fearing they too will be blamed for this event.

    A few personal observations…

    First, it is sad to see folks immediately politicize such a tragedy. If your first response to such an event is to think of Sarah Palin, something is wrong.

    Like it or not, the sort of rhetoric and imagery employed by Palin’s PAC is not terribly unusual. Politicians constantly talk about “targeting” voters — does anyone think they want to shoot them? Political consultants tell politicians to “hunt where the ducks are, ” but they certainly don’t mean to shoot voters. Ironically, Moulitsas has also previously urged his readers to “target” Giffords and put a “bulls eye” on her district because she “sold out the Constitution…”

    To be sure, it is possible for a politician to use words to incite violence, but putting a target on a congressional district is clearly not an example of that.

    Our culture is full of rhetoric that uses violent analogies for everyday events. Here is a headline I just pulled up: “Aaron Rodgers in the Eagles’ Crosshairs…Literally.” (Here’s another: Lindsay Lohan in Sheriff’s Crosshairs, Calif. Investigators Ask ” (Clearly, we had better hope nothing happens to the Aaron Rodgers or Lindsay Lohan in the near future).

    It’s also worth noting that the majority of the most egregious comments were made on Twitter, an outlet that allows folks to Tweet before thinking.

  16. ” I don’t care what his favorite books are.”

    Betcha would’a cared if they were the “Holy Bible” and “Pinheads & Patriots” though, wouldn’t ya?

  17. Just so you’re aware Nangleator “neo-Nazis” are not the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party. Ask one yourself.

  18. From the above Hot Air link:

    Update (Ed): Lots of tweets and a couple of e-mails about testimony from a young woman who claimed to know the suspect and his political leanings, but there’s not much point in pursuing that. She claims she last saw him in 2007, so the data would be marginal at best even if there was some confirmation of it, which there isn’t. As I tweeted earlier, assuming that the YouTube channel does belong to the suspect, it would indicate someone from neither Left nor Right but from outer space, and almost undeniably mentally ill.

    Update (AP): I suspect this story’s going to shift very quickly from an “ideological nutjob” narrative to one about an obviously ill man not getting the help he needed.

    A former classmate of Loughner at Pima Community College said he was “obviously very disturbed.”

    “He disrupted class frequently with nonsensical outbursts,” said Lynda Sorenson, who took a math class with Loughner last summer at Pima Community College’s Northwest campus.

    Sorenson doesn’t recall if he ever made any threats or uttered political statements but he was very disruptive, she said. He was asked to leave the pre-algebra class several times and eventually was barred from class, said Sorenson, a Tucson resident.

    From Jim Treacher, a dKos screenshot.

    From Ace:

    She’s tweeting more — unless she’s just making up an ever-more elaborate lie, I think she’s on the level.

    Tami reports her as tweeting:

    This is a circus. Good Morning America just called me. it’s loughner just checked my year book. I haven’t seen him since ’07. Then, he was left wing. more left. I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive. he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in ’06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical. As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy. he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven’t seen him in person since ’07 in a sign language class He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was “stupid & unintelligent”

    You know who had Gabrille Giffords on her “target list”? I don’t mean Sarah Palin, I mean this screechy little girl.

    Nope, dude wasn’t one of us.

    He may be atheist. It appears so in some of his spewage. But he may also be someone who believes in Providence but plays on the opposing team. There is evidence of that, as well, in his spewage. He is most definitely an anarchist, weakly trying to be a Chomskyite, while so far gone as to be humanly impossible to bring back to reality.

  19. Let’s not play the idiotic “blame game” here. No one really knows much about the shooter, and if he wounded a Democratic congresswoman, he also killed a federal judge appointed by George Bush.

  20. If anyone thinks the shooter was motivated by political considerations, why did he put his gun to the head of a 9 year old and pull the trigger? Isn’t it possible, just possible, we’re jumping to conclusions here, reading our own fears and passions into the sick mind of twisted little monster?

  21. I don’t know what movated the guy. He just sounds like a complete nut job to me. I’m sure within a few days we’ll get to know the nut behind the deed though. Of course since they captured him alive now we’ll have the dog and pony show. But I think Dana Pico is correct. Before you all start squaking he is a neo-Nazi, a Nazi, a commie, a leftist a conservative, it’s Palin/Beck/O’reilly’s fault or any other speculative nonesense let’s just take a “wait ans see”. One thing though, he apparently ain’t no moslem so that should make all the moslem appologists happy.

  22. Here are the rest of his favorite books, which ethics-free Mr. Hitchcock saw fit to ignore:

    Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

    Which is to say, a list put together by someone trying to impress with how well read he is.

    Here’s the facts:

    i, We dunno if he’s politically motivated. He appears to be a loon.

    ii, The Right, including those on this blog, have been using rhetoric egging on violence against liberals.

    iii, Note how quickly they jumped on reading Marx to attempt to discredit any connection with their rhetoric.

    Look, wingnuts, embrace it. Celebrate the death of a Democratic Congresswomen. In your hearts, you want those who disagree with you eliminated.

  23. Insty is reporting what a classmate of his is reporting: “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.”

    I could two shits about that, really, but it just goes to show you how big an asshole Nang and many others like him are.

  24. As for wanting the gunman to face federal charges, that’s not a particularly good idea. Remember John Hinckley? When there’s an insanity defense used, in most state cases, the defense has to prove the defendant was insane. John Hinckley got off because, in federal cases, the prosecution had to prove that the defendant was sane.

    Assuming that the shooter was the one who was captured, there’s nothing that the feds could do to him that Arizona state law can’t do.

  25. Look, wingnuts, embrace it. Celebrate the death of a Democratic Congresswomen. In your hearts, you want those who disagree with you eliminated.

    Could you be any further removed from reality? You, who wishes innocent babies to be killed before they even see sunlight? That’s what YOU embrace, fucktard.

  26. Still more “bummer” for Phoe and Nang: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php

    A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as “left wing” and a “pot head” in a series of posts on Twitter this afternoon.

    Caitie Parker did not immediately respond to our request for an interview, but her “tweets” in the hours after the shooting paint a picture of Jared Loughner as a substance-abusing loner who had met Giffords before the shooting. She says, Loughner described the congresswoman as “stupid and unintelligent.”

    We’ve confirmed that Parker and Loughner went to school together at Mountain View High School in Tucson and that both attended Pima Community College, so her claims of knowing Loughner seem to be legit.

    Parker “tweets” that she and Loughner were in the band together and were friends until 2007 when he became “reclusive” after getting alcohol poisoning and dropping out of college.

    She describes him as “quite liberal” and as a “political radical.”

  27. FOX NEWS reported Loughner tried to enlist in the US Army but was rejected. Also, authorities are currently looking for a possible accomplice, a man about 50 years old.

    Apparently, Loughner had a note in his possession which identified Giffords as the intended target. The full contents have yet to be made public.

  28. pho doesnt care who is killed or mamed in the decline of the USA. he is an equal opportunity america hater.

  29. Procedure:

    Ramp up hate speech against your Democratic targets;
    Use gun metaphors;
    Wait for and expect an assassination;
    Perform an immediate character assassination of the assassin;
    Blame the left for the attack on the left;
    Feel good about yourselves;
    Re-target and repeat.

  30. We don’t know enough of the details yet to be able to analyze the root causes of this terrible event. However, the vitriol surrounding the polarized discourse going on in our nation, much accelerated since the election of President Obama, including the violent metaphors already mentioned in this thread, create the atmosphere which pushes weak and/or deranged people over the edge.

  31. However, the vitriol surrounding the polarized discourse going on in our nation, much accelerated since the election of President Obama

    That is wholly inaccurate and betrays a complete lack of political history in this nation.

    From Slate:

    Abraham Lincoln was called a Negro. John Adams was referred to as a hermaphrodite. James Madison was accused of being French.

    From Live Science:

    Slander became the campaign precedent as early as 1800, when incumbent president John Adams ran against his vice-president Thomas Jefferson. The duo, who’d worked together on claiming independence for America in 1776, were now bitter rivals and traded slurs that would put today’s genteel candidates to shame.

    Jefferson’s side started by calling Adams a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Adams supporters responded by labeling Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

    And the vitriol has continued unabated:

    * In 1828 Andrew Jackson’s wife — who had, shockingly for the time, been divorced — was called all sorts of lewd names by his opponents (they also called Jackson a jackass). In retaliation, Jackson claimed that incumbent John Quincy Adams had once tried to offer his maid as a concubine to Russian Czar Alexander I.

    * 1964 pitted sitting president Lyndon Johnson against Republican Barry Goldwater and is considered one of the nastiest of the last century. Johnson systematically destroyed Goldwater’s character with the help of an “after-hours” smear team. It worked — Johnson won one of the most lopsided elections in U.S. history.

  32. IS DAILY KOS INVOLVED IN ARIZONA MURDERS?

    “My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!” — eerie Daily Kos hit piece on Gabrielle Giffords just two days before assassination attempt; repeated use of word “dead” in relation to Giffords just 48 hours before she and a dozen others were fired upon. UPDATE: Daily Kos scrubs “dead to me” thread but screengrabs document everything; UPDATE: school classmates and former friends describe shooter Jared Lee Loughner as committed Leftist (guess that counts out Sarah and McCain.) [edit)

    Posted by kevindujan01 under HillBuzz, Kevin DuJan | Tags: Congresswoman Giffords is dead to me says Daily Kos two days before shooting, Daily Kos diarist BoyBlue, Daily Kos diary, Jared Lee Loughner Facebook page, Jared Lee Loughner MySpace page, Jared Lee Loughner MySpace screengrab, Jared Lee Loughner screengrabs, Jared Lee Loughner YouTube page, shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, Why did Myspace Facebook yank pull remove Loughner page? |
    [125] Comments

    http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/08/my-congresswoman-voted-against-nancy-pelosi-and-is-now-dead-to-me-eerie-daily-kos-hit-piece-on-gabrielle-giffords-just-two-days-before-assassination-attempt-on-her/

  33. Bullshit Perry, if the shooter was Black you’d be making excuses for him and telling us that a disadvantaged background should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. If the shooter was an Islamic terrorist you’d be going on about “guilt by association” and trying to blame George W Bush.

    You’re a hypocrite Perry, and a transparent one.

  34. Hitchcock, your response is not a counter to my remark. Go back and reread it. I said nothing about an historic perspective.

  35. Perry says:
    8 January 2011 at 21:41
    We don’t know enough of the details yet to be able to analyze the root causes of this terrible event. However, the vitriol surrounding the polarized discourse going on in our nation, much accelerated since the election of President Obama, including the violent metaphors already mentioned in this thread, create the atmosphere which pushes weak and/or deranged people over the edge.

    And in the Daily KOS he was described UPDATE: school classmates and former friends describe shooter Jared Lee Loughner as committed Leftist. Wonder how the Lefties will work the TEA Party angle now?

  36. I reiterate Nang: Go fuck yourself.

    Repeat.

    Bullshit Perry, if the shooter was Black you’d be making excuses for him and telling us that a disadvantaged background should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. If the shooter was an Islamic terrorist you’d be going on about “guilt by association” and trying to blame George W Bush.

    Spot on.

    You pathetic “progressive” cretins just can’t stand it that it appears all your wildest fantasies that you just need to come true about the Right haven’t — yet again.

    Minorities? Their actions not their fault.
    Radical Islamists? Their actions not their fault.
    Pornography? Can’t be blamed for anything.
    Violence on TV, movies and video games? Can’t be blamed for anything.

    Conservatives discuss limited government and use precisely the same language and tactics that their political opponents do? They’re to blame for any violence even remotely connected to it.

    Do you see how ridiculously pathetic you are? Of course not. But the fact remains — you are.

  37. Perry, the vitriol of today is milquetoast compared to the vitriol of yesteryear. The statesmen of yesteryear would laugh derisively at the standard vitriol thrown out in today’s mainstream politics. Your statements have a contrary connotation, one which you clearly intended.

  38. ropelight farts:

    Bullshit Perry, if the shooter was Black you’d be making excuses for him and telling us that a disadvantaged background should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. If the shooter was an Islamic terrorist you’d be going on about “guilt by association” and trying to blame George W Bush.

    You’re a hypocrite Perry, and a transparent one.

    Great straw man, ropelight, with a bit of ropelight-vitriol added on. There was no need for your remark, except to make a personal attack. Just like Hitchcock’s, yours was not a response to what I wrote. Grow up, ropelight! Sheesh!!!

  39. Perry writes some passive-aggressive condescending ad hominem with a twist of irony:

    ropelight farts

    Grow up, ropelight!

    It seems Perry really should’ve taken that logic course in college, so he wouldn’t struggle so profoundly when the subject is political science.

  40. Yorkshire noted:

    And in the Daily KOS he was described UPDATE: school classmates and former friends describe shooter Jared Lee Loughner as committed Leftist. Wonder how the Lefties will work the TEA Party angle now?

    Yorkshire, in my post I was very careful not to take sides or assign blame, correct? As I said, we do not have much information yet. We do know that an automatic weapon was used, so I expect we will debate again the issue of limitations on the Second Amendment.

    As careful as I was, I already have Hitchcock and ropelight jumping on me, two people who are sources of vitriol on this blog. Interesting, isn’t it?

  41. We do know that an automatic weapon was used, so I expect we will debate again the issue of limitations on the Second Amendment.

    Actually, that would be false. An automatic weapon was not used.

    And there are zero limitations to the people in the Second Amendment, only limitations to government.

    Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

  42. As careful as I was, I already have Hitchcock and ropelight jumping on me, two people who are sources of vitriol on this blog. Interesting, isn’t it?

    Get down off that cross, Perry. Somebody better than you needs it.

  43. Of all the Democrats in the House of Representatives, Giffords, and the few remaining Blue Dogs like her are the ones most likely to work with Conservatives on issues of mutual interest.

    She supports 2nd Amendment rights and wanted to secure the border, she also voted against Nancy Pelosi. That’s the sort of Democrat that Conservatives can join with in bipartisan legislation.

    If Giffords was targeted for her political positions, then most likely she was shot by a far left true believer.

  44. Hube asks:

    Source please!

    I should have stated that it is my opinion, based on our increasingly polarized government and media, including social media like this blog. Do you not agree, Hube?

    One could go back to what the late Lee Atwater started in the 1980-1990 time frame, then on to Karl Rove a decade later. And let us not forget Rush Limbaugh and his talk radio minions, he himself going back more than two decades up to this very day.

    I suspect this increasing polarization is all characteristic of a nation that is losing it’s way, losing it’s moral authority, losing it’s economic and military dominance, because then people start playing the blame game, as on this very blog!

  45. As I said, we do not have much information yet.

    Of course, you also said

    However, the vitriol surrounding the polarized discourse going on in our nation, much accelerated since the election of President Obama, including the violent metaphors already mentioned in this thread, create the atmosphere which pushes weak and/or deranged people over the edge.

    so why do you then get all defensive when people call you out on this nothing-but-pure opinion crap?

  46. I should have stated that it is my opinion, based on our increasingly polarized government and media, including social media like this blog. Do you not agree, Hube?

    I do, but you blame one side whereas I do not. And the fact that you do not only exacerbates the overall problem.

  47. Hube asks:

    so why do you then get all defensive when people call you out on this nothing-but-pure opinion crap?

    Hube, look back at the sequence of the posts. I was already called out before I expressed the opinion you noted.

    I guess now you object to my expressing my opinion, is that it? This has gotten quite silly!

  48. I was already called out before I expressed the opinion you noted.

    So if you were called out for your fallacious opinion before you made your fallacious opinion, why did you then make your fallacious opinion which stands in stark contradiction to histo-facts?

    You really should learn to read for comprehension prior to inserting both your feet into your mouth, Perry.

  49. Hube, look back at the sequence of the posts. I was already called out before I expressed the opinion you noted.

    Where, precisely?

  50. Hube says:

    I should have stated that it is my opinion, based on our increasingly polarized government and media, including social media like this blog. Do you not agree, Hube?

    I do, but you blame one side whereas I do not. And the fact that you do not only exacerbates the overall problem.

    What side did I blame, Hube? I said: “… like this blog.”, correct? You are too quick to see blame when there was none stated. Are you righties on here suffering from some kind of a guilt complex? I mean, this is really weird how you are responding to my post!

  51. What side did I blame, Hube?

    I reiterate:

    However, the vitriol surrounding the polarized discourse going on in our nation, much accelerated since the election of President Obama, including the violent metaphors already mentioned in this thread, create the atmosphere which pushes weak and/or deranged people over the edge.

    Then shortly thereafter you exclusively note:

    One could go back to what the late Lee Atwater started the 1980-1990 time frame, then on to Karl Rove a decade later. And let us not forget Rush Limbaugh and his talk radio minions, he himself going back more than two decades up to this very day.

    Yeah — you “didn’t assign blame” … you just, y’know, exclusively used examples that tar and feather the Right. Silly me.

  52. Hitchcock gets sillier:

    So if you were called out for your fallacious opinion before you made your fallacious opinion, why did you then make your fallacious opinion which stands in stark contradiction to histo-facts?

    You really should learn to read for comprehension prior to inserting both your feet into your mouth, Perry.

    I made a simple statement of opinion, and you are trying to play silly games with it. Go at it then, if you wish, because I am opting out with you on this one.

  53. From what I’ve seen and heard Perry, and automatic weapon was not used. It was a semi-auto pistol. Like the cops carry. Like I carry.

  54. Hube persists:

    Yeah — you “didn’t assign blame” … you just, y’know, exclusively used examples that tar and feather the Right. Silly me.

    This is going nowhere, Hube. I stand by my statements. You stand by yours. So be it.

  55. Hoagie says:

    From what I’ve seen and heard Perry, and automatic weapon was not used. It was a semi-auto pistol. Like the cops carry. Like I carry.

    You could be right, John. Actually, I’ve heard both stated. Whatever he used, he did an extraordinary amount of damage. This was an attempted assassination of a US Congresswoman, that then included a Federal Judge and maybe at least four or more bystanders, a major tragedy!

  56. Perry says:
    8 January 2011 at 22:21 (Edit)
    Yorkshire noted:

    And in the Daily KOS he was described UPDATE: school classmates and former friends describe shooter Jared Lee Loughner as committed Leftist. Wonder how the Lefties will work the TEA Party angle now?

    Yorkshire, in my post I was very careful not to take sides or assign blame, correct? As I said, we do not have much information yet. We do know that an automatic weapon was used, so I expect we will debate again the issue of limitations on the Second Amendment.

    As careful as I was, I already have Hitchcock and ropelight jumping on me, two people who are sources of vitriol on this blog. Interesting, isn’t it?

    The first words from the Libs/Progressives/Lefties was TEAParty. Deal with it.

  57. I agree Perry. It was an extrodonary amount of damage for only one weapon. He must have been very close in since from all I’ve heard he was untrained. She had no body guards?

  58. Hoagie, it was a meet-n-greet sort of thing. She was shot in the head point-blank range. From my understanding, the 9-year-old girl that was murdered was also shot point-blank.

  59. Speaking of national decline, and tragedy, here is what Howard Fineman just wrote on HufPo: The End of Access

    WASHINGTON — The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is a watershed event in many ways, some of which we cannot yet know, but one of the clearest and simplest is this: Congress and its members are about to be permanently quarantined, physically isolated, from the people it and they represent.

    Thirty years ago, there was no such thing as security on Capitol Hill or for members. Members of the public were free to roam the halls, and police presence was practically invisible. There were no barricades around the grounds, and even the leadership rarely had any form of protection.

    The Hill was the very model of the People’s Place — and in that respect it was an inspirational symbol of our democracy.

    Congress began to close in on itself in 1983. A bomb explosion outside the Senate chamber engendered the installation of magnatometers; in 1998 a gunman shot two Capitol Police in an attack in the House. The result was a system of careful monitoring of all visitors and the extension of police protection to all members of the leadership. The 9/11 attacks led to the erection of barricades and new defense perimeters around the grounds; new inspection procedures were initiated after an anthrax attack in 2003 on the offices of then-Democratic leader Tom Daschle’s office.

    The construction of a new Visitor Center now means that the public can only enter through a secure facility and can only walk the halls in tour groups.

    New even more restrictive rules are now inevitable. It’s even possible that the general public will be banned from the hallways of the Capitol Complex, at least at certain times and under certain circumstances.

    As for personal protection, that is likely to be increased substantially. For the last year or two, some House members and senators have had unpublicized but substantial security details dispatched to their side when deemed warranted.

  60. Yorkshire wrote:

    The first words from the Libs/Progressives/Lefties was TEAParty. Deal with it.

    Not from mine! Again, we are short of information here. Leftist, rightie, TEA Party, whatever, we all have to deal with it, Yorkshire. He was an American!

  61. But Mr. Hitchcock, I do not understand why he shot the kid if the congresswoman was his intended target. Certainly a small child would not have been in his line of fire and why empy an entire magazine when one shot apparently did the trick. I don’t get it. This guy is no partisan, he’s a nut case.

  62. And there are zero limitations to the people in the Second Amendment, only limitations to government.

    Which is why, of course, the people are running around with nuclear weapons.

  63. Amendment 2 of the US Constitution:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    As I said, there are zero limitations to the people in the Second Amendment, only limitations to government. And it was intentionally so because it was written in order to ensure the people could throw off a tyrannical government.

    You really should learn a bit about US History if you’re going to try to debate intelligently, NZT. And you really should try to debate sans logic fallacies.

  64. I fail to see how anyone could construe “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” could mean they can own weapons of mass destruction. Arms are just that, arms. Not weapons of war, not anthrax, not neutron bombs goofball, arms. Arms defend onseself, family and community. Weapons of war are employed by nations not individuals.

    First you’re an expert on economics, then business, then banking and finance, then climate science and now OUR Constitution. I wish you would just become an expert at using common sense. Hell, you’re not even American, mind your own business.

  65. I fail to see how anyone could construe “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” could mean they can own weapons of mass destruction. Arms are just that, arms. Not weapons of war, not anthrax, not neutron bombs goofball, arms. Arms defend onseself, family and community. Weapons of war are employed by nations not individuals.

    An artificial distinction – why shouldn’t people use the threat of nuclear weapons to keep themselves free off government encroachment?

    It’s only a little goofier than fat American rednecks stating they need an armory of assault rifles to go chasing Bambi…

  66. Well, it’s pretty clear from the YouTube video that the guy was schizophrenic. Insane people tend to have hard-to-peg politics, because they’re crazy. This was the work of a psychotic individual, truly horrific. I really can’t stop constructing the scene mentally, and I’ve got a frighteningly detailed imagination.

    That said, there’s enough extreme rhetoric out there that people are going to look at who got shot and draw most of their conclusions. If it was Sarah Palin the left would immediately be blamed, and the usual people would post their little collections of quotes like Hube.

    I think though that violent rhetoric from politicians should be verboten. You guys can bitch and whine and use every other defensive trick in the book, but the fact is that a lot of Republican politicians have been using violent rhetoric, and thus some of this blame was invited. It’s all fun until somebody really does pull a gun. I don’t give a damn about word parsing and what the politicians really did or didn’t mean. If you were always grumbling about how someone ought to shoot the neighbor with the loud dog and then somebody who heard you did, you wouldn’t be parsing much. You’d feel somewhat responsible.

    But I don’t predict too many mea culpas, as this thread indicates. The right is going to be really defensive and claim they’ve done nothing wrong, as is to be expected. I just hope today’s events give some pause before they pipe off in the future.

  67. But I don’t predict too many mea culpas, as this thread indicates. The right is going to be really defensive and claim they’ve done nothing wrong, as is to be expected. I just hope today’s events give some pause before they pipe off in the future.

    What a bunch of blithering claptrap. Dude is an anarchist druggie. His high school and college classmate said he was a liberal who got kicked out of his college classes for unreasonable outbursts in class and she lost contact with him in 2007. He was anti-government, anti-religion, anti-Providence. Nothing he said matched up with conservatism or the TEA Party.

    Bloomberg tried to tie the NYC bomber to the TEA Party, only to find out he was a Mohammedan terrorist.
    The left tried to tie the Georgia professor who murdered other professors to the TEA Party and conservative talkers when it turned out she was a hard-core Obama supporter who killed not for politics but for herself.
    That shooter in Pittsburgh, same same.
    That IRS plane crash, same same.

    In fact, the left has been adamantly trying to tie each and every one of these things to conservatives and the TEA Party but absolutely none have panned out. Down the memory hole, try again with the next one. Down the memory hole, try again with …

    Face it, Hank, you got nuttin.

  68. But I don’t predict too many mea culpas, as this thread indicates. The right is going to be really defensive and claim they’ve done nothing wrong, as is to be expected. I just hope today’s events give some pause before they pipe off in the future.

    And here’s some more news on the political violence front:

    Two packages detonated in the mailrooms of two Maryland state government buildings, but no one was seriously injured, officials said.

    Investigators had yet to identify a suspect or make any arrests, a Maryland state official said.

    “Explosion may be too strong of a word. The packages were smouldering. In one case there was a flare up,” said the state official, who asked not to be identified because Maryland State Police was in charge of the investigation.

    There were no serious injuries, though a few people were examined by emergency medical technicians, the official said.

    A federal law enforcement official said the packages erupted into smoke and flames. No one was taken to the hospital.

    Here’s what will not happen.

    These will not be treated as terrorism.

    Nobody will be picked up and held without trial. Nobody will be tortured. Nobody will be held incommunicado and denied legal access.

    Organisations associated with whoever did this will not be proscribed. Nobody will be picked up who might possibly be connected, and held, and tortured.

    Because, in all likelihood, the people who did this are white and “Christian” rather than brown and Muslim.

    I wonder if all the wingnuts who have been apologists for torture here will be pressing for these bombers and any possible associates to be pursued and treated as have been treated other terrorists? Even if this leads to, say, teabaggers and right-wing groups?

    Of course, they won’t.

  69. Ya see, NZT, we think rationally and logically while you busy yourself spewing emotionally, irrationally and illogically without any facts.

    Uh-huh.

    What a joke you are, PB.

  70. Interesting link to an old post about NPR, NZT. Of course, you can’t link to the new post about NPR, where Juan Williams said

    What I crossed was her politically correct red line in the sand. She didn’t need to hear anything else, review anything else. There was nothing I could say that would make her change her mind.

    They’ve got a culture there that is not open to real news, that is not open to all points of view, that is not open to the real world around us and to the many different dynamics and perspectives and life stories that animate the news in America.

    She was pushing out anybody that had a different perspective about the news and the world.

    It’s become highly ingrown or even incestuous.

    If they want to be Pravda, if they want to issue propaganda like that, fine.

    And then you go right over to a leftist propaganda site that tries to lay the blame for an insane atheist anarchist leftist’s attack on Sarah Palin. You have no intellectual capacity at all.

  71. Slimeball Fred Phelps and Westboro Church announce plans to picket 9-year-old shooting victim’s funeral.

    From Hillbuzz, article by Kevin DuJuan, January 9, 2011

    “The Left does some truly despicable things in this world, but this is a new low for Democrats.

    Former three-time Democrat gubernatorial candidate Fred Phelps Jr. (commonly called just “Fred Phelps”) and his Westboro Hate Group have announced plans to disrupt the funeral of 9 year-old shooting victim Christina Greene.

    Christina was murdered by Jared Lee Loughner yesterday in his assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The little girl was born on September 11th, 2001, so her parents have been cursed with a horrific trifecta of high profile trauma: their daughter born on the worst day in our generations’ lives, their daughter murdered in an assassination attempt on a member of Congress, and Democrat Fred Phelps aiming his hate machine at their family during their daughter’s funeral.

    Democrat Phelps (an enormous supporter of Al Gore’s, though the media conveniently leaves off that he’s a Democrat and instead likes to imply he’s a conservative, which he is not…he’s a Democrat, and ran repeatedly on the Democrat ticket unsuccessfully for several elected offices) disrupted the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards last month, because it is what he does…”

  72. First, it is sad to see folks immediately politicize such a tragedy. If your first response to such an event is to think of Sarah Palin, something is wrong.

    Agreed. When this woman was shot, the last thing it occurred for me to do was to go digging up the political beliefs of the shooter.

  73. Ropelight continues with his partisan venom:

    The Left does some truly despicable things in this world, but this is a new low for Democrats.

    Ropelight, it is simply absolutely outrageous that you should attempt to politicize this disgusting behavior. You mean to tell me that the Left in general, and Dems in particular, would condone/support this horrible behavior? Answer: Yes, exactly! And you know what, Ropelight, I hold people like you who disseminate this crazy fiction accountable for the tragedy that has just occurred in Tuscon. You ought to think a little more before you pounce like this, if even possible!

  74. Oh, before I forget: Go fuck yourself, Whistler.

    What a bunch of opportunistic assholes. You couldn’t care less about human lives (already evident by your morally corrupt positions on abortion and capital punishment). You just care about eliminating any and all political and cultural opposition. Period.

  75. And you know what, Ropelight, I hold people like you who disseminate this crazy fiction accountable for the tragedy that has just occurred in Tuscon.

    Really? Well, I hold YOU accountable, Perry, for YOUR continued dissemination that any and every item spoken by Limbaugh, Beck, et. al. is somehow evil incarnate, and hence fosters such a poisoned political atmosphere.

    Fair enough?

  76. Hube makes stuff up again:

    Really? Well, I hold YOU accountable, Perry, for YOUR continued dissemination that any and every item spoken by Limbaugh, Beck, et. al. is somehow evil incarnate, and hence fosters such a poisoned political atmosphere.

    How about quoting me, Hube, if you want to make a point, instead of making stuff up.

    So here is a quote for you: I hold the likes of Limbaugh and Beck accountable for fostering the “poisoned political atmosphere” that has developed in this country. I also believe that the late Lee Atwater and Karl Rove bear considerable responsibility as well.

    That is my opinion, Hube. I plain do not agree with yours.

    And btw, what is your response to Ropelight’s venom? Do you agree his pinning the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church on the Dems?

  77. Hube speaks:

    Oh, before I forget: Go fuck yourself, Whistler.

    What a bunch of opportunistic assholes. You couldn’t care less about human lives (already evident by your morally corrupt positions on abortion and capital punishment). You just care about eliminating any and all political and cultural opposition. Period.

    Hube speaks his truth. All please bow!

  78. this is for my postmodern relativist friends who believe in non-absolute moralism: perry, whistler, pho, and whomever else you are…

    Creed
    by Steve Turner

    We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin

    We believe everything is OK

    as long as you don’t hurt anyone

    to the best of your definition of hurt,

    and to the best of your knowledge.

    We believe in sex before, during, and

    after marriage.

    We believe in the therapy of sin.

    We believe that adultery is fun.

    We believe that sodomy’s OK.

    We believe that taboos are taboo.

    We believe that everything’s getting better

    despite evidence to the contrary.

    The evidence must be investigated

    And you can prove anything with evidence.

    We believe there’s something in horoscopes

    UFO’s and bent spoons.

    Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,

    Mohammed, and ourselves.

    He was a good moral teacher though we think

    His good morals were bad.

    We believe that all religions are basically the same-

    at least the one that we read was.

    They all believe in love and goodness.

    They only differ on matters of creation,

    sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

    We believe that after death comes the Nothing

    Because when you ask the dead what happens

    they say nothing.

    If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its

    compulsory heaven for all

    excepting perhaps

    Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

    We believe in Masters and Johnson

    What’s selected is average.

    What’s average is normal.

    What’s normal is good.

    We believe in total disarmament.

    We believe there are direct links between warfare and

    bloodshed.

    Americans should beat their guns into tractors .

    And the Russians would be sure to follow.

    We believe that man is essentially good.

    It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

    This is the fault of society.

    Society is the fault of conditions.

    Conditions are the fault of society.

    We believe that each man must find the truth that

    is right for him.

    Reality will adapt accordingly.

    The universe will readjust.

    History will alter.

    We believe that there is no absolute truth

    excepting the truth

    that there is no absolute truth.

    We believe in the rejection of creeds,

    And the flowering of individual thought.

    If chance be

    the Father of all flesh,

    disaster is his rainbow in the sky

    and when you hear

    State of Emergency!

    Sniper Kills Ten!

    Troops on Rampage!

    Whites go Looting!

    Bomb Blasts School!

    It is but the sound of man

    worshipping his maker.

    Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern

  79. Wow, right after I wrote that last comment I went to do some reading and right away found this:

    Want to watch a Republican freak out? Utter the following statement:
    “This shooting demonstrates that we really need to tone down the violent political rhetoric.”

    That’s what I said. I specifically focused on politicians using violent rhetoric. The defensiveness in this forum is a bit of a meltdown.

  80. Perry wrote, “Ropelight, it is simply absolutely outrageous that you should attempt to politicize this disgusting behavior.”

    You’re confused again, Perry. What “disgusting behavior” are you accusing me of politicizing? I posted an excerpt from Hillbuzz, and the words you extracted and used to introduce your ill advised comment are those of the author, not mine.

    You’ve demonstrated an ongoing problem with confusion and misuse of quotes for some time, a rather common failing among Leftists, in fact you apologized for an instance of it only a few days ago.

    I denounce disgusting behavior fairly regularly here, yours, Naggy’s, Loughner’s, and that of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Church most recently. Additionally, it should be clear that my motivation was to condemn Phelps and his despicable band of hate mongers for their planned disgusting behavior disrupting Christina Green’s funeral.

    That the author, Kevin DuJuan, pointedly exposed Fred Phelps as an unsuccessful Democrat candidate for elected office, and a big supporter of Al Gore, is most likely the source of your misplaced pique. Phelps and his disgusting behavior is an outrage and I’ll not shrink from pointing that out so long as the Westboro hate mongers continue to despoil funerals.

  81. Now Ropelight backtracks:

    You’re confused again, Perry. What “disgusting behavior” are you accusing me of politicizing? I posted an excerpt from Hillbuzz, and the words you extracted and used to introduce your ill advised comment are those of the author, not mine.

    You’ve demonstrated an ongoing problem with confusion and misuse of quotes for some time, a rather common failing among Leftists, in fact you apologized for an instance of it only a few days ago.

    I suppose that to disagree with you is confusion, is that it Ropelight?

    Let’s take a look at the emphasis in the duJuan piece you quoted:

    “The Left does some truly despicable things in this world, but this is a new low for Democrats.

    Former three-time Democrat gubernatorial candidate Fred Phelps Jr. (commonly called just “Fred Phelps”) and his Westboro Hate Group have announced plans to disrupt the funeral of 9 year-old shooting victim Christina Greene.

    Christina was murdered by Jared Lee Loughner yesterday in his assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The little girl was born on September 11th, 2001, so her parents have been cursed with a horrific trifecta of high profile trauma: their daughter born on the worst day in our generations’ lives, their daughter murdered in an assassination attempt on a member of Congress, and Democrat Fred Phelps aiming his hate machine at their family during their daughter’s funeral.

    Democrat Phelps (an enormous supporter of Al Gore’s, though the media conveniently leaves off that he’s a Democrat and instead likes to imply he’s a conservative, which he is not…he’s a Democrat, and ran repeatedly on the Democrat ticket unsuccessfully for several elected offices) disrupted the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards last month, because it is what he does…”

    I mean come on, Ropelight, how much more blatant could author Kevin duJuan have been, in attempting to tie the Westboro atrocities to Democrats? Do you need to be led by the hand to the toilet, Ropelight? You are the one, you are the responsible one who posted this hatred upon hatred.

    All that said, we do agree about the “disgusting behavior” of Phelps and his minions!

  82. aotc posts:

    Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern

    aotc, to me this is no more than one big fat label, which is clever, but of little meaning. To avoid labels like this, you could also call it a stereotype, it is wiser, I think, to focus on debating the issues!

  83. I think this says it very well:

    In the wake of Saturday’s tragic shootings in Arizona, which have claimed the lives of six individuals and left many more, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, critically injured, Keith Olbermann delivered an important message about the place of violence within our democracy.

    Appearing on a special edition of “Countdown,” Olbermann told his audience that “we need to put the guns down. Just as importantly we need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently.”

    Olbermann continued, “Left, right, middle – politicians and citizens – sane and insane. This morning in Arizona, this age in which this country would accept “targeting” of political opponents and putting bullseyes over their faces and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows, ended.”

    He concluded his special comment with this powerful statement, including an apology for his own actions: “Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans.

  84. Perry says:
    9 January 2011 at 12:12

    aotc posts:

    Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern

    aotc, to me this is no more than one big fat label, which is clever, but of little meaning. To avoid labels like this, you could also call it a stereotype, it is wiser, I think, to focus on debating the issues!

    i rest my case.

  85. perhaps whistler is more intelligent than perry and can see the logical error of the postmodern worldview. (which by the way is pertinent here to this discussion)

    i doubt it, he is too arrogant. ( i think arrogance he likely learned from his own dad, a trait that he ironically despises in him)

    actually it is not an error of intellect. it is an error of pride. pride takes over and makes an otherwise intelligent individual a blithering idiot trying to justify idiocy in order for an autonomous self to do what it wants in opposition to any suspected moral authority.

  86. i doubt it, he is too arrogant. ( i think arrogance he likely learned from his own dad, a trait that he ironically despises in him)

    Somebody’s definitely a bit too cocky about their supposed clairvoyance…

  87. Somebody’s definitely a bit too cocky about their supposed clairvoyance…

    In this case, they’re too cocky about their supposed sentience…

  88. NZT, I went to that site. What a bunch of poppycock. Neo-nazis are not conservative. That enviro-wacko who held a bunch of people hostage is not conservative. And the Founders and Framers intentionally made the Second Amendment for just such a purpose as a threat to the government in order to act as a restraint on the government.

    what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

    -Thomas Jefferson to William Smith, 13NOV1787

  89. AOTC: No, I rest my case! See, as I predicted the other day:

    Style over substance. I say real things, you give me I’m-rubber-you’re-glue type crap. Taste great, not so filling.

    Every time you make a cheap crack instead of a substantial comment, I win.

    Proceed.

  90. Whistler, you have yet to say anything substantive. Not likely you can get your head around rules of logic and history to think a substantive thought. Put down the brownie.

  91. Perry, you’re as wrong about me “backtracking” as you are about your ongoing confusion. Your disagreements with me aren’t examples of “confusion,” they’re largely differences of opinion, emphasis, and interpretation. It’s when you disagree with yourself that demonstrates how confused you are.

    For example, somewhat ironically apropos of the topic, only 3 days ago on Dana’s “Who said this?” post, 1/6/11 @ 1059. You wrongly attributed a quote to me and later correctly apologized when I pointed out your error.

    In the interval, aotc commented (@ 1935) that you “…had been doing this with alarming frequency”

    Now, while I do appreciate the correction and the apology, I can’t pretend it didn’t happen. I will however acknowledge that mistakes can and do occur and that we are all capable of error. But Perry, errors are not disagreements, they can lead to disagreements, but they usually result from confusion.

    Then, there’s the issue of hypocrisy and how it interacts with confusion. Perry, you acknowledged that Kevin DuJuan authored the article I excerpted, yet you blamed me “Ropelight? You are the one, you are the responsible one who posted this hatred upon hatred.”

    Perry, in the first place, I don’t consider it “hatred upon hatred” to expose the fact, even second hand, that Fred Phelps is a three-time Democrat gubernatorial candidate. That makes him a fairly long term member of the Democrat Party, and one who aspires to a leadership position, at least at the state level. If that offends you, then take it up with the appropriate members of your party. I’m not one of them.

    In the second place, since when am I responsible for the words of someone else? Were you responsible for articles at the HuffPo when you quoted from writers at that site? You didn’t think so. In fact, you denied any responsibility and told Hube you weren’t about to defend the quoted material because it appeared under a byline listing the author’s name.

    That’s what honest people call hypocrisy, the evidence for it is when you claim for yourself what you deny to others.

  92. NZT, I went to that site. What a bunch of poppycock. Neo-nazis are not conservative.

    What a goddamned joke you are, PB.

    And the Founders and Framers intentionally made the Second Amendment for just such a purpose as a threat to the government in order to act as a restraint on the government.

    Ah, so you support shooting Congresswomen.

    Like I said earlier, why not stop pretending and embrace the violence your rhetoric stirs up?

  93. NZT, you make all manner of invalid leaps in logic. I have shown time and time again how my statements do not correlate with your arsepulls. Practically every one of your comments contains logic fallacies. And you love to use your Alinskyite tactic of attempting to force your opponents to defend statements they never made and don’t support.

    “If they bring a knife, you bring a gun.”
    “If Republicans take over the House, it’ll be hand-to-hand combat.”
    “CongressWOMAN Giffords is dead to me.”
    “They want you to die quickly.”

  94. Perry although I initially referred to Fred Phelps as a “Slimeball,” that doesn’t come close to describing his degeneracy. He’s every bit as odious as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, if not more so.

    I no more consider Phelps representative of Democrats as I would describe members of Westboro Church as Christians. Although Phelps and his parishioners can call themselves both Democrats and Christians, they are neither.

    We have our differences you and I, and they are many, and they are profound, but on this matter I hope we can agree.

  95. One thing we can all agree on is that the government needs to pick up anyone who might be associated with this act of terrorism, hold them indefinitely without trial, torture the truth out of them, and ban any organisation that might be involved or even associated with the shooter.

    After all, we’re not racist, and if it’s good enough to do it to Muslims, it’s good enough to do it to other people.

    (Hope he never showed up at a teabagger rally…)

  96. Hitchcock: As you’ve already demonstrated today, you can’t even read what’s written to you, so how would you know if I’ve said anything substantial? Not that a two-line bit of fluff from you would have made the case…

  97. From Legal Insurrection:

    There also was a second sickness on display, and it was the swiftness and the vigor with which the left-wing blogosphere and some more mainstream Democrats immediately sought to blame Sarah Palin and right-wing “vitriol” in general for the shooting.

    Not a shred of evidence connecting Loughner to Palin, the Tea Parties, or the right wing, yet the left-blogosphere, mainstream media and Democratic politicians have erupted into a frenzy of name-calling directed at Palin and those who oppose Obama’s agenda.

    Who knows what evidence will come forward in coming days, but based on what we know now, the attempt to blame Palin and opponents of Obama for the shooting is every bit as delusional as Loughner’s attempt to blame government mind control.

    Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen this type of reaction. The meme that opponents of Obama are crazy and dangerous has been an explicit Democratic Party campaign strategy for over two years. Here is just a partial list of events in which the left-wing and Democratic Party media operation has immediately blamed right-wing rhetoric, only to be proven wrong when the facts finally came out: Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

    That pretty well covers it.

  98. Phred Phelps and company came to MD to harrass a funeral of a Marine. The biker group of vets that provides escorts for funerals surrounded them and kept them away and contained. Meanwhile, someone came along and slashed all their tires on their vehicles. The MD State Police didn’t “see” a thing. The local tire merchants told them they weren’t selling them any tires. So, they drove out on the rims until someone would sell them tires.

  99. There really is a propaganda program going on in this country that the government is operating. You are a fool if you don’t know that. So, now am I a terrorist because I know that and you don’t want to? This is an excellent presentation which covers that, called PSYWAR.

    http://vimeo.com/14772678

  100. Do we have to go back to what we learned in junior high school? Okay. I think we can all agree these are Conservatives preferences for our government.

    Characteristics Of Fascism

    Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

    4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
    5. Rampant Sexism – The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
    6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
    7. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
    to the government’s policies or actions.
    9. Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
    10. Labor Power is Suppressed – Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
    14. Fraudulent Elections – Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

    They Thought They Were Free

    By Milton Mayer
    http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free_nn4.html

    “They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945″,
    University of Chicago Press. Reissued in paperback, April, 1981.

    As Harpers Magazine noted when the book was published in 1955 (U. of Chicago), Milton Mayerâsextraordinarily far-sighted book on the Germans is more timely today than ever·ä

    This crucial book tells how and why ‘decent men’ became Nazis through short biographies of 10 law-abiding citizens. An American journalist of German/Jewish descent, Mr. Mayer provides a fascinating window into the lives, thoughts and emotions of a people caught up in the rush of the Nazi movement. It is a book that should make people pause and think — not only about the Germans, but also about themselves.

    But Then It Was Too Late

    “What no one seemed to notice,” said a colleague of mine, a philologist, “was the ever widening gap, after1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing one is governing.

    What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

    “This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

    “You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the universe was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was “expected to” participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time.”

    “Those,” I said, “are the words of my friend the baker. “One had no time to think. There was so much going on.” “Your friend the baker was right,” said my colleague. “The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your “little men”, your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about – we were decent people – and kept us so busy with continuous changes and “crises” and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the “national enemies”, without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

    “To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it – please try to believe me – unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, “regretted,” that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these “little measures” that no “patriotic German” could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

    “How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice – “Resist the beginnings” and “consider the end.” But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn’t, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might.

    “Your “little men,” your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemoller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing: and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something – but then it was too late.”

    “Yes,” I said.

    “You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don’t want to “go out of your way to make trouble.” Why not? – Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

    “Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, “everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to you colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, “It’s not so bad” or “You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”

    “And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

    “But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to ö to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

    “But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked ö if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in “43″ had come immediately after the “German Firm” stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in “33″. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

    “And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying “Jew swine,” collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in ö your nation, your people ö is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

    “You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

    “Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done ( for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

    “What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or “adjust” your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know.”

    I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

    “I can tell you,” my colleague went on, “of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti Nazi. He was just ö a judge. In “42″ or “43″, early “43″, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an “Aryan” woman. This was “race injury”, something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case a bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a “nonracial” offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party “processing” which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the “nonracial” charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom.

    “And the judge?”

    “Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience ö a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the “44″ Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know.”

    I said nothing.

    “Once the war began,” my colleague continued, “resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was “defeatism.” You assumed that there were lists of those who would be “dealt with” later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised a “victory orgy” to “take care of” those who thought that their “treasonable attitude” had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.

    “Once the war began, the government could do anything “necessary” to win it; so it was with the “final solution” of the Jewish problem, which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its “necessities” gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany’s losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it.”

    – Milton Mayer

  101. oops, the latter was along for the ride, the 14 Characteristics of Fascism was the point.

  102. Blu, big-government folks (Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Wasserman-Shulz, Obambi) are fascistic whereas limited-government folks (constitutional conservatives, TEA Party supporters) are anti-fascistic.

  103. Thank you Blubonnet, you’ve managed to turn another thread into an insane rant. So I assume any and all conservatives are fascists in your view. Then would it be fair for me to say that in my opinion any and all liberals are fuckin communists? Because of the opinion of one guy, you formulate your opinion? Cause he put to pen what you believed all along? Quite the origional thinker you are, Blu.

  104. Well, actually, I’m an independent observer, and the guy who wrote that has a thorough background in history and in the entire field of social studies. He has a doctorate in political science.

    Now I’m sure your protesting my information I bring here will require you to exhibit Fascist characteristic….

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

  105. Not a shred of evidence connecting Loughner to Palin, the Tea Parties, or the right wing,

    You know, apart from calling for “Second Amendment remedies” and sticking a map up with cross-hairs pointed at Gifford.

    No-one is giving a case for a direct link – the case is a bit more subtle, which is probably why wingnuts are unable to grasp it.

    Mr. Loughner probably killed Rep. Giffords less for politics and more because he is mentally disturbed. But this does not absolve the political chattering class of responsibility for these repugnant murders. Right-wing rabble-rousers such as Rush Limbaugh, Palin, Angle, and Glenn Beck have long relied on a talent for dog-whistle communication that somehow activates the worst instincts in human beings – the fear of other people simply because they are different than us; the fight-or-flight instinct that shoots before it listens and kills instead of talks; the corrosive, perverse passions that in the name of liberty deliver our freedoms to tyrants.

    The mentally weak, the underprivileged, the poor, the uneducated, the unemployed – all of these persons are particularly vulnerable during this dark season in our country’s lifespan. The country is in turmoil; unemployment is terrifying; demographics are changing and the white majority will not be so for much longer. People are frightened. To incite the resentments and anguish of these souls, as so many feckless political vaudeville acts have done for their own profit and fame, is beyond the pale.

    For their own selfish ends, these Second Amendment fetishists sent out a message across the land – “It’s okay to kill members of your government if you get frustrated” – which is only an operative statement in moments of utter last resort, e.g. our own battle for independence. Their cheapening of language in this way, and the lowering of the threshold for violence, is more of an affront and a threat to our society than health care reform or gays in the military could ever be. Sadly, those who are most open to these messages of hate are those whose interests the messengers care the least about. When people get paid millions of dollars a year to take to the airwaves and convince you that President Obama is a greater threat to your family than banks run amuck, or than lack of access to education and health care, they are not on your side — nor are they on the county’s side.

    I realise that’s too difficult for the wingnuts to understand, but the rest of us get it.

  106. George W Bush has two Ivy League degrees and did better in college than Al Gore.

    Eric Blair over at Patterico has a PhD and is a college professor in the field of biology, yet he is quick to denigrate elitists like your doctorate in soft science source for drivel who think “I have a PhD” actually means something.

    Albert Einstein failed the entrance exam to the Swiss Federal Polytechnic Institute.

    Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.

    What do you call the person who graduates last in his class at medical school?

    A simple piece of paper doesn’t mean as much as you think it does. And if that paper has the “wrong” college on it, liberal elitists will attack that person. And if a person pays his or her own way through college, taking 5 years to complete a 4-year program, liberal elitists will denigrate that person.

    It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested.

    You mean like those colleges who do just that sort of thing (save for the “arrest” part) to conservative professors and academics? Like the professor who was teaching a course regarding the Catholic Church who had the audacity to actually teach Catholic Doctrine in that class?

  107. Oh, I guess that you are saying that George Bush is smarter than Einstein then? LOL

    Thwarting education is now part of the Conservative agenda too. They have enough money now, the Plutocrats like Bush and his boys in the defense industries and oil industries, they give money to colleges with “information” that they would like the masses to lean toward.

    I can see with simple clarity, the way the Fascist/Conservatives operate. Professor Laurence Britt is correct.

    And, by the way, I didn’t take this thread in this direction. I was being referred to in this conversation, in which I responded, with ample sources.

  108. Oh, I guess that you are saying that George Bush is smarter than Einstein then?

    That shows how incapable you are of reading for comprehension, since I made no such point.

    And, blu, if you take a simple gander at the article I wrote that started this thread, you will see that I noted right off that Representative Gabrielle Giffords is a Democrat from Arizona. I made no attempt to hide that fact. Of course, you’re not interested in the fact that dKos painted a target on her in 2008 or that a writer on dKos declared her “dead” to him just days before she was shot. You’re only interested in targeting conservatives for your libel and slander.

  109. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed

    Now, Hitchcock you are exhibiting the above Fascistic characteristic.

  110. For Blu – response to say weren’t there ——————————- (yet)

    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – I think this is a trait that is partisan and non-partisan. Look it at as displaying pictures families at weddings, graduations and other events. Everyone is proud of someone

    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – An equal oppurtunity problem. BO found out the bad guys we have are really bad guys. But we have cut the population in half rather tan increase.

    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – I would say this is an equal opportunity issue on both parties.

    4. Supremacy of the Military – In the Constitution, it’s the one thing that is mandated as needing Congressional funding. Everything else is an option.

    5. Rampant Sexism – This is all over the place. But just look at the shooting Gifford. Boehner came out non-partisan and said an attack on one member, is an attack on all members.

    6. Controlled Mass Media – Libs cornered this market with very few exceptions.

    7. Obsession with National Security – Think of the nation as a family. Think of the attack on Peral Harbor. With the exception of the irrational confining of the Japanese on the west coast, a little bit wth Germans was happening on the east coast.

    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – I think the ACLU took care of this.

    9. Corporate Power is Protected – It’s the Golden Rule – He who has the gold rules. It’s not a new concept. It’s been around as long as humans have been here.

    10. Labor Power is Suppressed – The opposite has been on under BO.

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. Not happening. If anything it’s acedemia surpressing rights.

    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Yes and No. The unfettered power of TSA is very bothersome. They seem to have shredded the constitution there. Most police forces in cities are jaded to the people where the most crime appears.

    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – One word – CHICAGO

    14. Fraudulent Elections – Try ACORN and George Soros.

    No single group has all the power. And if anything, the people are trying to reclaimit.

  111. The fact remains that insanity and a murderous agenda, does not make one Left or Right leaning per se, but just murderous and insane. Therefore the whole point of trying to make either one own it, is ridiculous anyway.

    But, you dared say: “The good news, which isn’t as good, is that the Congresswoman is expected to survive, the gunman was captured and identified.”

    I supposed by saying that you pray for her, is supposed to cancel out the above statement, which I highlighted. Your discombobulated way of operating mentally becomes clearer and clearer. Lack of operation might be a more appropriate way to address your mind.

  112. Here’s something interesting:

    Don Coorough, 58, who sat two desks in front of Mr. Loughner in a poetry class last semester, described him as a “troubled young man” and “emotionally underdeveloped.” After another student read a poem about getting an abortion, Mr. Loughner compared the young woman to a “terrorist for killing the baby.”

  113. But, you dared say: “The good news, which isn’t as good, is that the Congresswoman is expected to survive, the gunman was captured and identified.”

    I supposed by saying that you pray for her, is supposed to cancel out the above statement, which I highlighted.

    Your ignorance is showing, as usual. The good news, which isn’t as good, is that some people who were shot are pulling through, and the shooter has been caught.

    The good news, which isn’t as good as the bad news is bad. Dude tried to kill some people, only wounding them, but succeeded in killing other people. The magnitude of “good” in the news does not compete with the magnitude of “bad” now does it?

  114. Blubonnet responded; “Now I’m sure your protesting my information I bring here will require you to exhibit Fascist characteristic….

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.”

    So now you fancy yourself an intellectual and/or an artist? Or is it that if I disagree with your “arts and letters” I am a fascist? How open minded.

    Blubonnet then replies:”Thwarting education is now part of the Conservative agenda too. They have enough money now, the Plutocrats like Bush and his boys in the defense industries and oil industries, they give money to colleges with “information” that they would like the masses to lean toward.

    I can see with simple clarity, the way the Fascist/Conservatives operate. Professor Laurence Britt is correct.”

    So once again that stupid Bush is so brilliant and all-seeing that he controlls colleges? Another conspiracy dillusion, Blubonnet. How many conspiracies does that make now, two, three, five? And pray tell me, exactly which colleges does he control?

    Not happy to show us her paranoia and silliness thus far, Blubonnet continues:
    “8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed

    Now, Hitchcock you are exhibiting the above Fascistic characteristic.”

    Now our religion and government is intertwined? What planet do you live on? We can no longer even place a manger scene in a public park nor display the Ten Commandments in a court room.

    The only fascistic tendencies I see here are those displayed by you in an attempt to denegrade and belittle those with whom you don’t agree. Projection, fruitloops, projection.

  115. Pho reported : “Don Coorough, 58, who sat two desks in front of Mr. Loughner in a poetry class last semester, described him as a “troubled young man” and “emotionally underdeveloped.” After another student read a poem about getting an abortion, Mr. Loughner compared the young woman to a “terrorist for killing the baby.”

    Don Coorough’s description of Loughner is precicely what my description of you would be, if asked. And as far as the young woman who takes killing her own developing baby so lightly as to pen and ode to him/her, I say she’s a sycophant. But it is not I nor the others on this blog who insist on calling us terrorists, torturers or murderers, it is you. So then I suggest you are no better than Loughner. Besides, he did what you wanted: killed Americans. That is what you seek, is it not Pho? The end of America, Pho?

  116. It’s amazing watching the hysterically defensive reactions of the wingnuts to people pointing out that maybe there’s a link between a nutcase shooting politicians, and right-wing rhetoric saying “go shoot politicians”.

    It does, however, require that people forget that wingnuts were cheering on people carrying assault rifles to rallies, or all the teabagger signs such as “We came unarmed – this time”. Not to mention the sneers that the small women who got herself stomped by a couple of burly men at a Rand Paul rally probably had it coming for being a leftie.

    We all saw these. And now we’re supposed to forget they happened?

    I wonder how long it’s going to take before they’re back to business as normal?

  117. you and whistler are so needy its embarrassing,

    why not just beg for attention? oh wait….

    goodnight psycho boy.

  118. AOTC: It takes two to tango, genius. (p.s. I win again! Keep fulfilling my prediction, thanks.)

    I mean, I at least come here to find a good spirited argument that involves competing ideas. You just sit there waving your pom-poms, and now you just sit there desperately repeating your IF YOU RESPOND TO ME YOU’RE OBSESSED WITH ME shtick hoping it will work. Maybe it occurs to you that providing a better argument than me might work, but then you probably realize you aren’t capable of that, so you do what you know. Even when I predict you’re going to keep at it. I guess those pats on the head from DNW are just too glorious to pass up. BTW, how did you like seeing me spank your hero once again? It must be depressing to have that fool for a hero.

  119. I blame blubonnet for the shooting in Tucson:

    The Loughner they met when he was a freshman at Mountain View High School may have been socially awkward, but he was generally happy and fun to be around. The crew smoked marijuana every day, and when they weren’t going to concerts or watching movies they talked about the meaning of life and dabbled in conspiracy theories.

    For a time, Loughner drank heavily, to the point of poisoning himself, the friends said. Once, during school lunch break as a junior, he downed so much tequila that he came back to class, within five minutes passed out cold, had to be rushed to the hospital and “almost died,” one friend said.

    Mistrust of government was Loughner’s defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system (“a New World Order currency” one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world.

  120. Wonder how all the wounded would have fared under full Obama Care??? Wonder if Triage would look and say too much work we won’t be reimbursed for?

  121. Ropelight offers:

    We have our differences you and I, and they are many, and they are profound, but on this matter I hope we can agree.

    Yes, most definitely, we can both agree on the atrocious behavior of Phelps and his Westboro Baptist hate mongers.

    It seems we are also agreeing that the duJuan piece was over the top. It is rhetoric like this that can promote crazies, like Jared Loughner, to act out.

    I think Pima County, AZ, Sheriff put it well yesterday when he said at a press conference yesterday:

    When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain people’s mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.

  122. I think Pima County, AZ, Sheriff put it well yesterday when he said at a press conference yesterday:

    “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain people’s mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.“

    Right, Perry. And what about rhetoric like this: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

    Who said THAT, Perry?

  123. Hube asks:

    Who said THAT, Perry?

    I have no idea; enlighten me please.

    Nevertheless, do you agree with the Sheriff’s statement, Hube?

  124. I have no idea; enlighten me please.

    None other than Barack Obama himself — http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

    Nevertheless, do you agree with the Sheriff’s statement, Hube?

    It depends. To “progressives” like yourself, “tearing down the government” means something as innocuous as advocating returning to original principles … like the 10th Amendment. “Bigotry” to “progressives” means something as innocuous as deporting illegal aliens and/or vocing opposition to something like the DREAM Act.

  125. How about BO’s Attorney General waving off on the New Black Panthers prosecution on intimidation. That may have an influence of committing crime with impunity.

  126. Hube, you (and Yorkshire) took that statement our of context. From your own cite:

    ““Barack Obama’s call for ‘new politics’ is officially over. In just 24 hours, Barack Obama attacked one of America’s pioneering women CEOs, rejected a series of joint bipartisan town halls, and said that if there’s a political knife fight, he’d bring a gun,” McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said, referring also to the Obama campaign’s shot at Carly Fiorina’s lavish pay package and role in layoffs at Hewlett-Packard.”

    “a political knife fight” ==> “a [political] gun [fight]‘

    You knew that, didn’t you Hube?

    And to your reaction to the Sheriff, I will correct your statement to what I really think, not what you assume I think. “Tearing down the government” means obstruction with the workings of democracy, like overuse of the filibuster rule in the senate, like a single Senator stopping the movement of a bill, like demonizing one’s political opponent instead of focusing on the political issue at hand. On bigotry, I’ll let your statement stand regarding the views of some progressives.

  127. Yorkshire wrote:

    And if you google “They bring a knife, you bring a gun” and you’ll get a page full of refences to BO. So, it’s BO’s fault for raising the level of rhetoric along with people like Van Jones and Frances Piven, and a whole lot more.

    You have taken Obama’s statement out of context, as per my point to Hube.

    We could have a debate about both Van Jones and Frances Piven. However, I can’t help but notice that you did not include FoxNews and the Rush Limbaugh minions. I suppose we could make a list of over-the-top rhetoric from both sides of our current political divide.

  128. Yorkshire: “…New Black Panthers…”

    From here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/25/ftn/main6711575.shtml
    And here: http://mediamatters.org/research/201007070020

    A recent Media Matters investigation has debunked charges that the Obama administration withdrew criminal charges against the Panthers (in fact, the Bush administration decided not to pursue criminal charges, with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testifying that the Bush Justice Department “determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes”; a civil lawsuit was filed in the last days of the Bush administration, and a judgment won by the Obama Justice Department in May 2009).

    Media Matters also found no evidence that any voters in the predominantly-black voting district had been prevented from voting.

    Start your own investigation with the Bush administration.

  129. Hube, you (and Yorkshire) took that statement our of context.

    Oh, riiiiight. Like the apoplectic Left isn’t taking the Palin “target” graphic out of context. Sheesh. And you want honest debate, Perry? Really? REALLY? You make excuse after excuse when the Left does PRECISELY WHAT YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RIGHT.

    This is why folks ultimately resort to … silliness when engaging you. Because you’re not serious whatsoever about what you claim you want. Not at all.

    “Tearing down the government” means obstruction with the workings of democracy, like overuse of the filibuster rule in the senate, like a single Senator stopping the movement of a bill, like demonizing one’s political opponent instead of focusing on the political issue at hand.

    Ah, so stuff like that is what can send people “over the edge?” LOL!! Both sides do it!! (And please — if you keep bringing up overuse of the filibuster, then also bring up the unprecedented denial of allowance of minority party — GOP — amendments to bills, ok?)

  130. Perry, you’re confused again, and you’re misrepresenting my position by ignoring the comparison of Reverend Wright to Fred Phelps. See my comments at 1530 and at 1614 above.

    I wrote, “Perry although I initially referred to Fred Phelps as a “Slimeball,” that doesn’t come close to describing his degeneracy. He’s every bit as odious as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, if not more so.

    I no more consider Phelps representative of Democrats as I would describe members of Westboro Church as Christians. Although Phelps and his parishioners can call themselves both Democrats and Christians, they are neither.”

    So, Perry, the “matter” on which I sought possible agreement was the condemnation of both Reverend Wright and Fred Phelps, not one to the exclusion of the other. Clearly, you can’t bring yourself to denounce the odious Reverend Wright. Consequently, we are not in agreement.

    Nor do I agree with your quote from the ill informed local Democrat sheriff in Arizona. His personal view is little more than an attempt to blame political rhetoric for the insane behavior of a violently disturbed individual.

    He and you are dead wrong about political rhetoric, it wasn’t politics that motivated Loughner, it was psychosis.

  131. Hube responds:

    Oh, riiiiight. Like the apoplectic Left isn’t taking the Palin “target” graphic out of context. Sheesh. And you want honest debate, Perry? Really? REALLY? You make excuse after excuse when the Left does PRECISELY WHAT YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RIGHT.

    Hube, are you denying that you took that quote out of context? It is pretty obvious that you are! There’s no excuse making by me here.

    Furthermore, I said nothing about Palin’s crosshairs; so don’t impute that to me.

    Then you lower yourself to a personal attack, Hube, with no reference noted to substantiate your statement:

    This is why folks ultimately resort to … silliness when engaging you. Because you’re not serious whatsoever about what you claim you want. Not at all.

    On on shutting off amendments to bills, specifically, what bills are you talking about?

    I note that the House Repubs, after agreeing to allow amendments to their bills, issued a no amendments stipulation on the first three bills on their 112th congressional agenda. So much for keeping their word.

  132. “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

    When Obama says things like that for months and years at a time, and there’s an actual knife fight, and a Democrat pulls a gun out during the knife fight…

    Then you’ll have a point.

  133. Ropelight, I made it very clear about that which I agree with you. There is no confusion about it. Moreover, there was no misrepresentation of your position, as I took you at your word.

    I did not include Wright, because I do not fine him comparable to Phelps. If you do not agree, fine.

    The fact that our political rhetoric has gotten out of hand has been quite obvious to me for a long time, therefore the Loughran outrage was not needed to convince me of our national communication and political dysfunctions, which are quite evident on this very blog.

  134. Hube, are you denying that you took that quote out of context? It is pretty obvious that you did! There’s no excuse making by me here.

    No, what I am saying is that normal, rational people know precisely what Obama meant, just as normal, rational people should know precisely what Palin meant. Yet, the MSM, lefty blogosphere, etc. are specifically “targeting” (pardon the pun) Palin’s ad as being culpable in the shooting. Just as you keep referring to conservative speech over and over in this forum as somehow being “more” culpable for incidents like Saturday’s.

    On on shutting off amendments to bills, specifically, what bills are you talking about?

    In the Senate, where you perpetually complain about “unprecedented” use of the filibuster:

    We’ve all heard the complaint: Republicans are the “Party of No.” But the GOP’s historic number of filibusters is the only viable response to Sen. Harry Reid’s unprecedentedly authoritarian rule of the Senate. Senator Reid has blocked the minority from amending bills more than any Senate majority leader in history — and more times than the last four Senate majority leaders combined.

    Since you’re very concerned about “context,” Perry, take that context into account before you repeat your complaint about the filibuster ad nauseam once again.

  135. Taking things of context? Perry, that’s exactly what you did and it’s the subject of my comment which appears immediately above yours.

  136. When Obama says things like that for months and years at a time, and there’s an actual knife fight, and a Democrat pulls a gun out during the knife fight…

    Get real, Nang. Should we all now list instances of Leftist violence that we can oh-so ridiculously “tie” to Obama, et. al.? Just like you morons keep doing to Palin, et. al.?

    You’re a pathetic joke.

  137. Ropelight claims:

    Taking things of context? Perry, that’s exactly what you did and it’s the subject of my comment which appears immediately above yours.

    I took nothing out of context, Ropelight. I took the part of your statement with which I agreed. Moreover, I clarified the distinction in my last post. Simply, I agreed with your position on Phelps, and disagreed with your position on Wright. What more do we need to discuss on this issue?

  138. Perry, it seems the utter futility of attempting to have an honest debate with an unrepentant hypocrite is about all that remains.

  139. Hube says:

    Just as you keep referring to conservative speech over and over in this forum as somehow being “more” culpable for incidents like Saturday’s.

    Yes, I definitely believe that. There’s no equivalence on the left to the abusive rhetoric and lies of FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh and the like, in my view.

    And on the Repubs use of the filibuster, there is no argument about it, it is a fact that it has been used at record numbers. For you to pass it off as a response to leader Reid is quite far fetched, a real stretch, nothing more than an excuse for record level obstruction of the normal processes of the US Senate, in my view.

    Looks like we are at an impasse, Hube!

  140. Ropelight retreats:

    Perry, it seems the utter futility of attempting to have an honest debate with an unrepentant hypocrite is about all that remains.

    It’s on you, Ropelight. So be it!

  141. Hube reacted to Nangleator:

    “Get real, Nang. Should we all now list instances of Leftist violence that we can oh-so ridiculously “tie” to Obama, et. al.? Just like you morons keep doing to Palin, et. al.?

    You’re a pathetic joke.”

    It is exactly this kind of inflammatory rhetoric that we need to make an effort to check, even on this blog, in my opinion! What more will it take to drive this message home?

  142. Looks like we are at an impasse, Hube!

    Whatever. Except there’s definitely no “impasse” as to which of us is much more rational, that’s for sure. After all, just take this perfect example:

    For you to pass it off as a response to leader Reid is quite far fetched, a real stretch, nothing more than an excuse for record level obstruction of the normal processes of the US Senate, in my view.

    Fortunately, you add “in my view.” Unfortunately, as is the case more often than not, your “view” is hideously warped. You’ve been in here for months whining about the GOP’s use of the filibuster; now that I’ve provided the exact reason why — Harry Reid’s unprecedented use of his power to disallow GOP amendments to bills — that’s nothing more than an “excuse.” And you complain about the “belittling of democracy??” How dare you! Is it “democratic” to disallow minority party amendments?

    rope just said perfectly above: “attempting to have an honest debate with an unrepentant hypocrite” is nigh but impossible. Because in reality, you DON’T care about democracy or honest debate. You’re just like those pathetic DLers who only view things in terms of a political party prism — and that’s it. Heated rhetoric by the Right? Bad. Heated rhetoric by the Left? Not so bad. Unprecedented use of filibuster by the GOP? Abuse of power. Unprecedented use of disallowance of amendments by Democrats? Just an “excuse” by the GOP for their abuse of power.

    Absolutely laughably pathetic.

  143. It is exactly this kind of inflammatory rhetoric that we need to make an effort to check, even on this blog, in my opinion! What more will it take to drive this message home?

    Easy: A lot less outright hypocrisy on YOUR end. Period.

  144. This says it all:

    But all that might be tolerable to leftists if they weren’t starting to lose control of the one weapon in which they have the most faith: the narrative. The narrative is what leftists believe in instead of the truth. If they can blame George W. Bush for the economic crisis, if they can make Sarah Palin out to be an idiot, if they can call the Tea Party racist until you think it must be true, they might yet retain power in spite of the international disgrace of their ideas. And though they still mostly dominate the narrative on the three broadcast networks, most cable stations, most newspapers, and much of Hollywood, nonetheless Fox News, talk radio, the Internet, and the Wall Street Journal have begun to respond in ways they can’t ignore.

    That’s the hateful rhetoric they’re talking about: conservatives interrupting the stream of leftist invective in order to dismantle their arguments with the facts. As for leftists’ reaction to the Arizona shooting, call it Narrative Hysteria: a frantic attempt to capitalize on calamity by casting their opponents, not merely as racist or sexist or Islamophobic this time, but as somehow responsible for an act of madness and evil. Shame on them.

  145. Perry’s responses here are typical leftist responses. It’s bad when you do it and it gets people killed, but when we do it, well, that’s different!

    And, yes, Perry’s being the typical hypocritical leftist.

    When leftists, in the media, in public office, as blog authors, publicly wish for the death of conservative politicians, talking heads, children of conservatives, all that is fine and dandy. When leftist nutballs actually do kill people, the leftists try to blame the right’s talk until the leftist nutballs (like Perry) find out the killer is a leftist. Then they shut up about it and hope it all just goes away.

  146. Hube claims:

    “Easy: A lot less outright hypocrisy on YOUR end. Period.”

    Now you are diverting, Hube, with a non-specific allegation, no less.

    We need to strive for improvement. Sometimes it takes a cataclysmic event to wake us up.

    Have you awakened, Hube? That’s the point I’m trying to make.

  147. There’s no equivalence on the left to the abusive rhetoric and lies of FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh and the like, in my view.

    I wonder if all this is “abusive rhetoric and lies.”

    But Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are “worse.” And FDR was worse than Stalin and Churchill was worse than Hitler.

  148. Have you awakened, Hube? That’s the point I’m trying to make.

    No you’re not. Not even close. You’re just doing what Hitchcock just posted. End of story.

    And as for “waking up?” You’ve been asleep since the mid-2000s … “in my view.”

  149. Hitchcock wrote:

    Perry’s responses here are typical leftist responses. It’s bad when you do it and it gets people killed, but when we do it, well, that’s different!

    And, yes, Perry’s being the typical hypocritical leftist.

    When leftists, in the media, in public office, as blog authors, publicly wish for the death of conservative politicians, talking heads, children of conservatives, all that is fine and dandy. When leftist nutballs actually do kill people, the leftists try to blame the right’s talk until the leftist nutballs (like Perry) find out the killer is a leftist. Then they shut up about it and hope it all just goes away.

    Here we have another example of non-specific allegations cloaked in inflammatory language from you, John.

    You have learned nothing, so far. How does one even engage with the comment you just made, except perhaps to engage in more inflammatory language?

    I choose to point out what this rhetoric is, in my view, and to hope for better.

  150. I choose to point out what this rhetoric is, in my view, and to hope for better.

    I choose to point out what a ridiculous hypocrite you (and others) are on this and other issues, and to hope for better. That’s all.

  151. Hube responds:

    No you’re not. Not even close. You’re just doing what Hitchcock just posted. End of story.

    And as for “waking up?” You’ve been asleep since the mid-2000s … “in my view.”

    Instead of engaging, Hube, you are continuing to attack. What good comes from this, I ask?

  152. Nangleator notes:

    Good smiles for you, Perry: http://www.borowitzreport.com/

    That’s a good one, Nangleator.

    I must say that I am amazed that the attitude regarding the use of inflammatory rhetoric seems, so far, to be unchanged by some of our colleagues on this blog, in the wake of the tragedy that has befallen us. Perhaps a little more time is required for the impact to sink in.

  153. Yorkshire posted:

    Read this from Michelle Malkin. It has a lot of sourced references of the hatred from the Left. Perry, it has all the citations you’ll ever need.

    Yorkshire, I skimmed through this entire Malkin piece, which represents documented evidence of the behavior of fringe elements of the left. It’s pathetic and disgusting.

    This behavior does not represent me, nor I dare say most liberals. In fact, I was familiar with only several of the examples Malkin documents. Since I am a close follower of the news on a daily basis, one would think that I would have been aware of this fringe. It seems to me that Malkin would like to paint this fringe behavior on liberals in general, since she does not put her findings in perspective. Moreover, a fair and balanced presentation would be for Malkin to have done an equivalent study of the fringe on the right. I wonder why she did not?

  154. Perry: “…I am amazed that the attitude regarding the use of inflammatory rhetoric…”

    They’re still in the ‘best defense is a good offense’ mode. Sooner or later, they’ll cool down. Then it will be time to start the cycle over again and ramp up the hate and eliminationist talk about their next victim.

  155. Yorkshire said:

    BO on bringing a gun. If this isn’t hate speech, whet is then?

    Yorkshire, as I pointed out before, and now for the WSJ also, this statement is taken out of context, the context being a political knife and a political gun. The WSJ ought to be ashamed for doing this. This is not Journalism, it is propaganda.

  156. Nangleator says:

    Perry: “…I am amazed that the attitude regarding the use of inflammatory rhetoric…”

    They’re still in the ‘best defense is a good offense’ mode. Sooner or later, they’ll cool down. Then it will be time to start the cycle over again and ramp up the hate and eliminationist talk about their next victim.

    I would hope that that would not be the case longer range, but so far there hasn’t even been any cooling down by a couple of the regulars on here. I think we have a barometer right here on this blog.

  157. This behavior does not represent me, nor I dare say most liberals. In fact, I was familiar with only several of the examples Malkin documents. Since I am a close follower of the news on a daily basis, one would think that I would have been aware of this fringe. It seems to me that Malkin would like to paint this fringe behavior on liberals in general, since she does not put her findings in perspective. Moreover, a fair and balanced presentation would be for Malkin to have done an equivalent study of the fringe on the right. I wonder why she did not?

    Obviously you’re NOT a close follower of the news. OR, maybe you are — of the MSM. And THAT’S the reason you haven’t seen anything like what Malkin posted. It’s the ‘ol “DFTN” — Doesn’t Fit The Narrative. It takes sites like Malkin’s to do the job the MSM won’t. It’s quite simple, Perry.

    And do you wonder why the MSM doesn’t do equivalent studies of their own?

  158. Well, nobody here’s going to admit an ounce of regret it seems. I used the “bring a gun to a knife fight” line a couple months ago myself, unfortunately, and I’m sure President Obama would look back and regret his choice of words as well.

    However, the equivalence game being played here is pretty much opposite-of-regret. This is just alibi-mongering.

    I find it especially interesting that a GOP senator who admitted they had gone too far had to do so anonymously. The energy on the right at this moment is directed towards damage control, and any who speak out will face retribution. The Arizona sheriff stating the obvious is a good example.

    The right feeds off this kind of thing, instinctually turning themselves into the victims so they can complain about the media and how poor and persecuted they are. Pretty soon somebody will decide that Ms. Giffords owes Sarah Palin an apology.

    But I think that’s mostly flash. The country simply isn’t going to be fond of anybody using gun talk about politics for the foreseeable future, so whatever games we play about who should feel some degree of responsibility and regret, going forward things must change, and those who do not get the message will feel the heat.

  159. It isn’t Giffords who owes Sarah Palin an apology here, it Naggy. See his comment at 8 January 2011 at 16:51.

  160. The right feeds off this kind of thing, instinctually turning themselves into the victims so they can complain about the media and how poor and persecuted they are.

    LOL!! Yeah, right. The only that is “instinctive” is the idiot Lieft’s predilection for finding political advantage in instances such as Saturday’s. It’d be absolutely refreshing if you dolts showed just a little class when someone politically connected dies.

  161. Look, wingnuts, embrace it. Celebrate the death of a Democratic Congresswomen. In your hearts, you want those who disagree with you eliminated.

    Nothing, I repeat, nothing I have ever written on this site has EVER suggested what this pathetic moron has written here. I’ve had spirited arguments (specifically, with my friend Perry), but I would never wish physical harm on any fellow human being for expressing their political points of view. It is the spirit of Americans to allow each other to civilly carry on arguments without the threat to harm anyone, and I find Phoenician in a time of Romans comment here the most disgusting, despicable and vitriolic horse crap I’ve ever read on this site, (and believe me, this is being civil). Short of an outright apology to Dana, and all others on this site, I will never acknowledge your existence—ever, (yes, you will be metaphorically eliminated). I will however pray for the souls of people like you who brazenly and shamefully suggest such an unthinkable act.

  162. Here’s my comment from 8 January 2011 at 17:20, which was among the first dozen posts on this thread.

    “Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. Early reports don’t make much sense and attempts to ascribe political motive now reveal little about the shooter and speak volumes about the motivations of the gutter-snipes. It’s a Rorschach test for intelligence and character.

    Caution now will will be noted and recognized, while bilious nonsense will indelibly mark out the fools for well deserved ridicule.”

  163. It is the spirit of Americans to allow each other to civilly carry on arguments without the threat to harm anyone,

    Riiiiiight.

  164. It takes sites like Malkin’s to do the job the MSM won’t.

    Ha — you mean the job of documenting exactly & only what she wants to see with the explicit intent of further her political beliefs? Isn’t that the thing y’all accuse the so-called MSM of doing, and complain about? If Malkin were “doing the job” you claim she’s doing, she’d be linking to people with “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots” signs and “liberal hunting license” shirts & bumper stickers, either of which you can find with a simple GIS. Nuts, just GIS “conservative hunting license” — you’ll still just get that license to hunt & kill liberals thing that’s very popular among conservatives.

    I know that in your echo chamber, you’ve all convinced yourselves of the proposition that you routinely take the high road, but the truth of the matter, which a moment’s sober contemplation would reveal to any of you, as you’re all reasonable people, is that Republicans, like Democrats, are nihilistic, amoral people whose only interest is in attaining & retaining power; if crazy people get inspired to kill some children along the way, well, what the hell. Neither “side” has a leg to stand on, though the one that talks without regret or apology about “second amendment solutions” to electoral hurdles is the one that — surprise! — is going to be on the hot seat when people pull out guns and aim them at elected officials.

  165. Nor do I agree with your quote from the ill informed local Democrat sheriff in Arizona. His personal view is little more than an attempt to blame political rhetoric for the insane behavior of a violently disturbed individual.

    He and you are dead wrong about political rhetoric, it wasn’t politics that motivated Loughner, it was psychosis.

    I think that sums the situation up very well.

  166. I think Pima County, AZ, Sheriff put it well yesterday when he said at a press conference yesterday:

    I think the Sheriff jumped to conclusions before knowing the facts. We still don’t know what, if anything, motivated the shooter, and since he’s kept silent so far, we may never know.

    Besides, this is a tragedy. We should be mourning the victims and praying for the survivors instead of looking to milk this incident for some sort of self serving political gain.

  167. Ha — you mean the job of documenting exactly & only what she wants to see with the explicit intent of further her political beliefs? Isn’t that the thing y’all accuse the so-called MSM of doing, and complain about?

    News for Neanderthals: The MSM is supposed to report — objectively — the news. Malkin, OTOH, makes no pretenses about doing that. Frequently, aside from her usual rightist commentary, she has to do what the MSM will not.

    Amazing that 1) You didn’t know that, and 2) You still don’t criticize the MSM for failing to do its job objectively.

  168. A nut case goes out and shoots a bunch of people and you guys try to make political hay out of it. I don’t give a rats ass if you’re left, right or center it’s Loughner who did this crime and attempted assasination. It wasn’t Perry nor Yorkshire, wasn’t Limbaugh nor Olberman, wasn’t Gore nor Bush, wasn’t the DNC nor the RNC. It was Loughner. No amount of “rhetoric” or “vitriol” can make anyone do anything they don’t want to do. He and he alone is reponsible for his actions and to try to spread the guit for one mans actions around is in itself crazy. And to use this horrid incident to attempt to limit in any way Our right to free speach or to bear arms is an abomination.

    No one here (except Pho who loves to see dead Americans) is pleased with this crime. It is a crime not only against the Congresswoman, the Judge, and the other victims but also agains Our Congress, Our Government and Our Republic. Why in the hell would so many people waste time trying to pin the blame on their political opponants is beyond me. Loughner pulled the trigger, no one else.

  169. Eric says:

    Nor do I agree with your quote from the ill informed local Democrat sheriff in Arizona. His personal view is little more than an attempt to blame political rhetoric for the insane behavior of a violently disturbed individual.

    He and you are dead wrong about political rhetoric, it wasn’t politics that motivated Loughner, it was psychosis.

    Eric, I think you are missing the Sheriff’s point. He is not making a specific statement, rather, he is making a general statement about the political situation in Arizona. Here it is again:

    “The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

    If anyone would know about the situation in Arizona, I would expect a Sheriff to know!

  170. Like the apoplectic Left isn’t taking the Palin “target” graphic out of context.

    The context being that this is a grapohic coming from someone who talks about “Second Amendment remedies”, and aimed at an audience who cheered when Dr Tiller was murdered after a website posted him in crosshairs.

  171. Hoagie says:

    Why in the hell would so many people waste time trying to pin the blame on their political opponants is beyond me. Loughner pulled the trigger, no one else.

    I think the point you may be missing, John, which the Sheriff and others are trying to make, is that today’s inflammatory rhetorical climate pushes lunatics like Loughner into action, especially when some of these lunatics have ready access to guns and ammunition.

  172. No amount of “rhetoric” or “vitriol” can make anyone do anything they don’t want to do. He and he alone is reponsible for his actions and to try to spread the guit for one mans actions around is in itself crazy.

    Riiiiiight. And his choice of target has nothing whatsoever to do with rhetoric blaming Democrat politicians for all America’s troubles, and talking about “Second Amendment remedies”.

    Neo-Nazis who go out and beat up Jews are also entirely to blame for their actions. That doesn’t excuse anti-semetic hate-talk, or make it acceptable.

  173. Perry says:
    10 January 2011 at 14:32

    I think the point you may be missing, John, which the Sheriff and others are trying to make, is that today’s inflammatory rhetorical climate pushes lunatics like Loughner into action, especially when some of these lunatics have ready access to guns and ammunition

    Then Obama should stop it.

  174. When did Obama talk about “Second Amendment remedies” or claim “We came unarmed – this time”, Yorkshire?

  175. “The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

    If anyone would know about the situation in Arizona, I would expect a Sheriff to know!

    He may be partly right about that, but then, angry political rhetoric comes from all sides. One man’s “Extremist talk” is another’s spirited debate or passionate argument. There was, for example, the famous “General Betray Us” ad put up by MoveOn.org not too long ago. I could also point to the far left text “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky that recommended engaging in personal attacks on the other side, among other things. Politics in this country can get harsh, but that’s the result of having a First Amendment that protects political speech above all else. Someone early on posted some of the rhetoric used in the days of Jefferson and Adams, it amounted to an exchange of vicious personal attacks and inflammatory statements designed to whip up hysteria on both sides of the aisle.

    My point is the sheriff was jumping to conclusions based on little or no evidence. As a law enforcement officer, he should be focusing on the specifics of the crime, not venturing opinions on matters that have not been shown to be directly or indirectly responsible for it.

    Anyway, like I said, this really should not be about partisan politics. It is a tragedy, plain and simple, as as Hoagie and others have pointed out, the blame belongs to the shooter and no one else. He obviously had serious psychiatric problems and I doubt very much that Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh had anything to do with what he did.


  176. Like the apoplectic Left isn’t taking the Palin “target” graphic out of context.

    The context being that this is a grapohic coming from someone who talks about “Second Amendment remedies”, and aimed at an audience who cheered when Dr Tiller was murdered after a website posted him in crosshairs.

    I see. Palin, Dr. Tiller … yes indeed! That’s SOME “connection!”

    Idiot.

  177. ” And his choice of target has nothing whatsoever to do with rhetoric blaming Democrat politicians for all America’s troubles, and talking about “Second Amendment remedies”.” Beats the hell out of me Pho. All I know is that if I were to blame a Democrat for “all America’s troubles” Gaby would be way, way down on my pecking order. But of course, you know more than the rest of us as to what might motivate a loon like Loughner, not I.

    “Neo-Nazis who go out and beat up Jews are also entirely to blame for their actions. That doesn’t excuse anti-semetic hate-talk, or make it acceptable.”

    I never suggested it should be “acceptable” Pho, I just don’t think it should be illegal, do you? Sorry, dumb question. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

  178. This Pima County Sheriff Dupnik isn’t new to the Democrat’s political smear and disinformation program. He’s got a history of repeating the party line.

    Only last summer he was telling us that illegal immigration in Arizona wasn’t a real problem, that there was no need for new laws, and that it was “right-wingers” who had manufactured the issue for partisan political purposes.

    Another example of his stupidly partisan bilge was Dupnik’s claim that drug violence in Mexico wasn’t spilling over the border into Arizona.

    The man is a political stooge, nothing more.

  179. And his choice of target has nothing whatsoever to do with rhetoric blaming Democrat politicians for all America’s troubles, and talking about “Second Amendment remedies”.

    I see. By this “logic” then, all the usual leftist subjects who continually scream “racism” at virtually anything can thus be blamed for the wildly disproportionate crime rate of minorities, notably against members of the majority, as “justice.”

  180. I think the point you may be missing, John, which the Sheriff and others are trying to make, is that today’s inflammatory rhetorical climate pushes lunatics like Loughner into action, especially when some of these lunatics have ready access to guns and ammunition.

    Except there is no evidence of that. Oddly enough, this guy may have sustained brain damage from a drinking binge that occurred a bit earlier in his life. I suppose we should now blame beer and liquor ads?

  181. Ropelight, I too have heard the Pima County Sheriff on the tube before and I must agree his statements about Arizona went against everyone else I listened to. He is the Ying to Joe Arpio’s yang.

  182. Pho, will you please take a breath? Several people were killed here, among them a judge appointed by the first president Bush and also a 9 year old girl. We should be showing some compassion for the victims instead of turning this into some sort of self serving political argument.

    It should also be noted that the Congresswoman was a moderate or “Blue dog” Democrat who was also strongly supportive of gun rights. In that she would have been in full agreement with Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

  183. Yorkshire wrote:

    Then Obama should stop it.

    Like Obama should stop what, Yorkshire? We’ve already cleared up the issue that the knives and guns statement was taken out of context by Hube, that it was a metaphor. Given the way the right (and you) is using this misinformation against Obama, his choice of words is acting against him, unfortunately. So now a politician has to choose his/her words on the basis of future misinformation by political opponents. Isn’t that asking a little much?

  184. Yes Perry, that is asking way too much, in my opinion. We either have free speach or we don’t. We cannot pick and choose the speach we like or agree with and ban the reast.

  185. Yorkshire, I skimmed through this entire Malkin piece, which represents documented evidence of the behavior of fringe elements of the left. It’s pathetic and disgusting.

    Fringe elements of the left, you say?

    Flashback — Montel Williams to GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann:

    WILLIAMS (1:30:32): Michele, slit your wrist.

    Go ahead… or, do us all a better thing [sic].

    Move that knife up about two feet.

    Start right at the collarbone.

    So, Montel Williams is a fringe element of the left?

    Now, Joy “If you disagree with me, you’re a BITCH!” Behar is trashing GOP Nevada senate candidate Sharron Angle as a “bitch” who is “going to hell” because of her staunch opposition to illegal immigration and the cult of multiculturalism. You will get a headache after watching this, but it’s worth watching — not just for Behar’s antics, but for the polite tittering and showbiz-as-usual camaraderie of Behar’s spew mates as they watch their foul-mouthed friend go off:

    Joy Behar is a fringe element of the left?
    Whoopi Goldberg is a fringe element of the left?

  186. Perry says:
    10 January 2011 at 15:07

    Yorkshire wrote:
    Then Obama should stop it.

    Like Obama should stop what, Yorkshire? We’ve already cleared up the issue that the knives and guns statement was taken out of context by Hube, that it was a metaphor. Given the way the right (and you) is using this misinformation against Obama, his choice of words is acting against him, unfortunately. So now a politician has to choose his/her words on the basis of future misinformation by political opponents. Isn’t that asking a little much?

    Practically from Day 1, Obama has had harsh words for the Republicans with BO saying We Won, now go sit in the corner.

  187. Eric claims:

    It is a tragedy, plain and simple, as as Hoagie and others have pointed out, the blame belongs to the shooter and no one else.

    I don’t entirely agree with Hoagie. If you recall the climate in 1995 when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it had to do with strong anti-Government feelings in the wake of Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Branch Davidians, Dr Tiller being ambushed, and the Newt Gingrich assault on federal authority. This was also a time when the militia movement was particularly strong, vigilantism was rampant. So yes, the political environment does have an impact on that the behavior of the lunatic fringe.

  188. Perry says:
    10 January 2011 at 15:23 (Edit)
    I don’t entirely agree with Hoagie. If you recall the climate in 1995 when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it had to do with strong anti-Government feelings in the wake of Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Branch Davidians, Dr Tiller being ambushed, and the Newt Gingrich assault on federal authority. This was also a time when the militia movement was particularly strong, vigilantism was rampant. So yes, the political environment does have an impact on the the behavior of the lunatic fringe.

    So, what you are saying is the Demoncracts whip up this frenzy if only happening when a Dem is President.

  189. Yorkshire continues:

    Practically from Day 1, Obama has had harsh words for the Republicans with BO saying We Won, now go sit in the corner.

    That “We won” statement bothered me too. However, Obama has attempted to work with the Repubs, Yorkshire, but what was he to do when it was the stated objective of the Repubs, as a first priority, to see him to his “Waterloo”. Except for the Lame Duck session, please tell me what the Repubs did to cooperate?

  190. Yorkshire now asks?

    So, what you are saying is the Demoncracts whip up this frenzy if only happening when a Dem is President.

    No, the main thing I am trying to say is that the rhetoric accompanying a contentious political climate impacts the bahavior of unstable people. I think all of us agree that this is a very contentious political climate, with plenty of personal demonizations and very loud rhetoric and nasty demonstrations (as per Malkin’s coverage of the left).

    Gotta go!

  191. So yes, the political environment does have an impact on that the behavior of the lunatic fringe.

    Except again we simply don’t know that. If you go far enough to the extremes, right and left tend to merge. Anti-government rhetoric usually belongs to the party out of power, as witness the Bushitler and Darth Cheney statements by extreme leftists who made inflammatory statemts about “Shredding the Constitution” and other such talk.

    Also, as indicated, the congresswoman was a moderate Dem and the judge who was killed was a Republican appointee. The shooter had a clear record of strange, even psychotic behavior, which had been noted by his former classmates. He was ejected from his community college and rejected by the Army. He seems to have acted alone, and, besides the Democrat Congresswoman and the Republican judge, all his other victims (and I think there were 14 of them in total) were nonpolitical bystanders. He just wanted to murder as many people as possible. Unfortunately, these rampages, such as the Virginia Tech shootings from a few years ago, seem to happen when mentally unstable individuals get access to guns and, for reasons often unknown, just snap at some point and unleash their violent fantasies.

    Anyway, I’m sure you would agree that compassion for the victims should be our first response, and delving into possible motivations or suggesting that partisan rhetoric played a role should wait until some actual evidence is in.

  192. I see. Palin, Dr. Tiller … yes indeed! That’s SOME “connection!”

    You’re not very smart, are you?

    Anti-choice website puts out a graphic with target featuring Tiller. Tiller is then murdered.

    Right-wing politician, catering to the same general audience, then puts out a graphic with a target featuring Gifford….

  193. Which of the parties historically have been the advocates for peace? Need I say more? Okay, I will say more.

    Why should we be hateful? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died unnecessarily, but for corporate acquisition, from the decisions made by the original right-wing war monger. Yeah, I hate him. I hate Obama for continuing it?

    I hate violence.

    But, I’m not the one and few Lefties are the ones that get bees in their bonnet (pun intended) over guns. I don’t own one.

    Violence historically in this country is of the Right.

  194. Pho, will you please take a breath? Several people were killed here, among them a judge appointed by the first president Bush and also a 9 year old girl. We should be showing some compassion for the victims instead of turning this into some sort of self serving political argument.

    Riiiiight – so it’s compassionate for wingnut rhetoric to egg loons into murdering people, but not compassionate to talk about it afterwards…

  195. I think all of us agree that this is a very contentious political climate

    Perry, the political climate has always been contentious, going right back to the Founders, who, as previously noted, were not above vicious personal attacks on each other. Most presidents have been vilified by their political opponents – Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, hell, it goes back at least as far as Lincoln, who was called a baboon among other things by his enemies. Perhaps the only exception to this rule was Eisenhower, who seemed to be liked by everybody. And, when violence occurs, you can always find someone else to blame if you want, whether it was the anti-war radicals of the 60′s “Inspiring” the Weathermen or certain black politicians who stirred up passions after the Rodney King verdict. But talk is talk, and action is action, and in this country and our legal system, when violence occurs, the sole blame for such falls on the perpetrators. After all, if one were so inclined, one could find a link between someone’s speech and a violent act, regardless of how tenuous it is, but doing so solves nothing and serves merely to both satisfy one’s own partisan urges while deflecting the blame for the people who actually commited the violence.

  196. Riiiiight – so it’s compassionate for wingnut rhetoric to egg loons into murdering people, but not compassionate to talk about it afterwards…

    Only if one is more interested in assigning blame to satisfy one’s own self-serving partisan purposes as opposed to showing concern for the victims involved. I suppose I could blame the left for the fact that he also shot a Republican judge, but since there’s no evidence to show any motive on the part of the killer beyond his obviously psychotic state of mind, I shall refrain from doing so.

  197. Interesting you should bring that up, Eric. I recall the “radical” peace protests, where the Right leaning government, in THIS country thought gunfire was the thing to do.

  198. Why is Charles Manson in prison? He didn’t kill anyone. The members of his ‘family’ acted as lone nuts, on their own, right?

  199. You’re not very smart, are you?

    A LOT more than you, in this case. In case you missed it, we’ve already shown that the Left/Democrat politicians do precisely what Palin did with her graphic.

    Any connection to Tiller is pure nonsense. And you know it. You’re just being your usual “silly” self.

  200. Why is Charles Manson in prison? He didn’t kill anyone. The members of his ‘family’ acted as lone nuts, on their own, right?

    Good point. After all, Al Sharpton is free after what happened at Freddie’s Fashion Mart, right?

  201. On October 23, The Scranton Times reported that Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., said this about Florida’s new Republican Governor Rick Scott:

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

    ——————————————————————————–

  202. Hube: Please, we’ll see how you guys act when Republican politicians start getting holes blown in them after a chorus of major Democratic politicians have been using violent language talking about “Second Amendment remedies.” You guys are sitting there dragging in Whoopi Goldberg, or using President Obama making one reference to build a case that the two sides are equivalent, you think you wouldn’t hear the shrieks across the land if somebody shot a major GOP politician?

    The plain truth is that everybody knows where the majority of the hate speech has been coming from, and it’s the same shit that was brewing in the air leading up the Oklahoma City bombings. Giffords’ Tea Party opponent in the last election was advertising himself holding an M-16 and fundraising by letting people shoot with him, yet it’s just one excuse after another, like “like listening to a teenager try to explain why his homework assignment isn’t done.” It was a surveyor scope, really!

    The threats against the Democratic Congress and Barack Obama have shot through the roof in the past couple years, and it’s just pathetic to see the same people who have been screaming the loudest about the Demo-Commie-Fascist destruction of America now scream even louder that they had nothing to do with anything.

    Some class would be deeply appreciated, and very few on the right are demonstrating it in the wake of this shooting. Admit no mistakes! But like I said, the true test will be to see if you guys can self-correct. The next time a GOP-er runs for office talking violent eliminationist rhetoric, we’ll see how he does in the primaries, or if you continue with your excuses.

    That said, it would be nice if Perry would stop making excuses for Obama’s one instance of using gun imagery. It would be far smarter to note how isolated this incident was, and sit back watching Yorkshire yammering about Obama daring to say “We won,” when the Republicans were trying to kill the signature piece of Obama’s campaign, health care. Obama himself would apologize were he reminded of the moment, which is something I’d be mighty surprised to hear from any Republican.

    Like I said earlier, if you were grumbling about somebody who pissed you off and how they should be shot, and then somebody heard you and did it, even if they were a schizo you’d still feel some remorse. That’s something people can relate to. Running around screaming that you’re the real victims because anybody dare thought of you after the murder, well…that just won’t wash in the long run.

  203. I suppose I could blame the left for the fact that he also shot a Republican judge, but since there’s no evidence to show any motive on the part of the killer beyond his obviously psychotic state of mind, I shall refrain from doing so.

    Uh-huh.

    Evidence seized from Mr. Loughner’s home, about five miles from the shooting, indicated that he had planned to kill Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, according to documents filed in Federal District Court in Phoenix.

    Special Agent Tony M. Taylor Jr. of the F.B.I. said in an affidavit that an envelope found in a safe in the home bore these handwritten words: “I planned ahead,” “My assassination” and “Giffords.”

    Right.

    I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.

    Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.

    It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

    Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

  204. We are not the victims Whistler. The people who were shot down and their families are. I think all you guys need to remember that whilst you try to attach this nut to each other. This has nothing to do with ideology unless you make it so.

  205. The people who were shot down and their families are. I think all you guys need to remember that whilst you try to attach this nut to each other. This has nothing to do with ideology unless you make it so.

    Once again, the proof seems to be that the nut deliberately set out to assassinate a Democratic Congresswoman. That was his goal; the other people who died were incidental to that goal.

    Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

  206. No Pho, as usual you put your wacko ideology ahead of, well your head. He set out to deliberatley assassinate Gaby Giffords, the fact she was a Democrat was incidental to him. Turns out he’s had a hard on for her since at least 2007. She was a Blue-dog Dem, so if he was after her for being a Dem it would stand to reason it was because he was a liberal and felt she wasn’t liberal enough. He didn’t go after a leftist Dem like Frank did he?

    And I still say ideology had nothing to do with it, he hated her, period.

  207. The plain truth is that everybody knows where the majority of the hate speech has been coming from

    I recall a lot of “Hate speech” directed at Bush and Cheney from 2001 – 2008. Lots of “Bush = Hitler ” signs and all that. Face it, this stuff cuts both ways, angry rhetoric has been a part of the political climate in this country going back to the Founders, and as long as there’s a First Amendment, it will continue.

    Giffords’ Tea Party opponent in the last election was advertising himself holding an M-16 and fundraising by letting people shoot with him, yet it’s just one excuse after another

    So what? In Arizona, they take gun rights seriously, even to the point of allowing you to carry a weapon in open sight on your person. This fellow was simply demonstrating his 2nd Amendment rights, and nothing you cite shows the slightest inclination to incite violence against Giffords or anyone else. You’re really reaching here.

    It should also be noted, as I said before, that people are speculating on motive and trying to use this as a partisan tool at a time when virtually no such facts are in. No one knows what motivated this nut, and since he ain’t talking, we probably won’t.

  208. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again.

    That, of course, is just plain ridiculous. I went to a MCain/Palin rally in 2008 (something you obviously haven’t done) and the crowd was gushing in its enthusiasm for Palin. Not a hint of violent symbolism anywhere.

    Really, Pho, just give it a rest. Do you have any concern for the victims at all, or do you just want to use this tragedy to score some cheap political points?

  209. We are not the victims Whistler. The people who were shot down and their families are. I think all you guys need to remember that whilst you try to attach this nut to each other. This has nothing to do with ideology unless you make it so.

    That appears to be the case, based on exactly zero evidence to the contrary. A psycho, almost by definition, doesn’t need a rational reason to kill someone. It is too bad that the first thing some folks did was try to use this tragedy to push a political agenda. Personally, I feel sorry for all the victims. Congresswoman Giffords will likely suffer permanent cognitive impairment because of this, which I would not wish on anyone no matter what their politics.

  210. PS: Does anyone remember Joe Manschion [sp?], Democratic Senate candidate (and eventual winner) from W. Va? He ran a campaign ad in which he took a rifle, loaded a bullet in it, then fired a shot at Obama’s Cap & Trade bill. Violent imagery, anyone? Possibly an inspiration for some nut to try to shoot Obama?

    Of course not, I say. It was merely a strong rhetorical device, nothing more. There is strong, even overheated, political rhetoric and it comes from all directions. Trying to link this stuff to actual acts of violence by people who are obviously psychotic to begin with is a stretch so thin as to be downright anorexic.

  211. PPS: It appears the shooter was also a 9/11 Truther. Should we blame Blu & Co for “Inspiring” him? Also, he seemed to be heavily into both Hitler and Marx, supposedly polar opposites on the political spectrum. Trying to draw any conclusions about his motives from all this nuttery would seem to be an exercise in futility.

  212. Excuse me, Dana, I’m trying to continue adding information to the 911 Truth thread, which is not open anymore. I believe that eventually the availability of this knowledge among intelligent and iquisitive people will want information as the reality becomes more solid, and believe me, it is quite substantial now.

    But, most people know by now that Osama bin Laden was actually on our government’s payroll, and some say that he was up until 9-11-01, and employed by our CIA. ??? Well, this piece from CBS (amazingly they do cover things sometimes) is what I wanted to add to the Truth thread. I hope, Dana, for those that eventually want to start catching up, the sources will be available. Those here will be ahead in information. This is what I wanted to drop into that thread about Osama bin Laden…

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml

  213. Incidentally, as many (including Patterico) try to pin this onto the Truth Movement, I attempt to defend us and our pledge of non-violence, Patterico’s, with the exception of allowing one post, then censors me, disallowing the defense, but of course allowing all the bullshit, derision and emptiness, regarding logic, mean spirited comedy on it to rage along without allowing any rebuttal. Sleaze ball tactics, I must say.

  214. Actually, Patterico allows my post as long as there are no live links on it, come to find out.

  215. Nope, he deleted it after all. Dirty, dirty dirty operation. Sliming us, without an opportunity to defend one’s position.

    Thank you, again, Dana, for being a man of honor!!! (even though you are a Rightie, I won’t hold it against you)

  216. I see that you have both blubonnet and the always polite, well-mannered and logical Phoenician in a time of Romans prowling around this thread and your blog. You have my sympathies sir. That’s rough.

  217. And now Patterico is conspiring against you? Your shoulders are broad to carry such a burden of truth.

  218. Dave the Sage, interesting blog: The Constiution Club, I like it. That title alone should throw the two you mentioned into fits of angst. I’ll be visiting.

  219. Ropelight wrote:

    On October 23, The Scranton Times reported that Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., said this about Florida’s new Republican Governor Rick Scott:

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

    Well, you’ll be happy to know that Rick Scott, who was never even charged with any crime, won his gubernatorial race in Florida, while Paul Kanjorski, who represented my district :( was defeated by my new congressman, Representative Lou Barletta (R-PA 11th) :)

    You know, it’s one thing if a private citizen like me says that someone is “a damn crook,” but it’s something else entirely when a sitting Member of Congress says that.

  220. From the Washington Post:

    Jared Lee Loughner was a registered independent, didn’t vote in 2010 election
    By Chris Cillizza
    Suspected Tucson gunman Jared Lee Loughner registered as an independent voter in Arizona in the fall of 2006, according to the Pima County Registrar of Voters.

    Loughner registered to vote on Sept. 29, 2006, identifying himself as an independent. Records show he voted in the 2006 and 2008 elections but is current listed as “inactive” on the state’s voter roles — meaning that he did not vote in November.

    The political affiliations of Loughner, who is being charged by state and federal authorities with the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) as well as 19 other victims outside a Tucson grocery store on Saturday, have become the subject of a white-hot partisan debate in recent days.

    In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, liberals sought to paint Loughner as an anti-government, tea party conservative. Conservatives retorted that Loughner lacked anything close to a coherent political philosophy — a case strengthened by subsequent glimpses into his personal life that suggests someone struggling with mental illness.

    Loughner’s decision to affiliate as an independent rather than a Republican or Democrat would seem to affirm the sense that while he targeted Giffords in the attack, it was not a decision born of a set of deeply held political beliefs that fit neatly into either party.

    As I previously stated : He’s a nut job who was after the Congresswoman, not a partisan. So Pho, Perry, Fruitloops, Whistler Nangleator et al, Don’t you all look foolish now?

  221. Perry says:
    10 January 2011 at 15:30

    Yorkshire continues:

    Practically from Day 1, Obama has had harsh words for the Republicans with BO saying We Won, now go sit in the corner.

    That “We won” statement bothered me too. However, Obama has attempted to work with the Repubs, Yorkshire, but what was he to do when it was the stated objective of the Repubs, as a first priority, to see him to his “Waterloo”. Except for the Lame Duck session, please tell me what the Repubs did to cooperate?

    Perry, i’m glad we agree that the “we won” statement was over the top. Jobs was the No.1 priority in the first term, or should have been, but instead BO took a derisive, polarizing item like Health Care, subcontracted it to Pelosi and Reid and it had to be the most polarizing event of BO’s Presidency. Yes, the Repubs offeredd suggestions, but they were not in the mold of what Pelosi and Reid wanted, therefore ignored. I have found out in six decades which you probably foung in the same time frame go can only withstand beatings for so long, and you give up. In the end, the Reps did a Pontius Pilate and washed their hands of the process they waer never wanted by the Dems to help anyway. What do you think Nov. 2nd was all about.

    Now, two years after BO said he’d offer his hand to the other side to discuss, he has gotten part of the message.

  222. Has anyone taken notice there was no visible, or invisible security at this event. I think the Sheriff for all his bluster today, fell down on his job of not guarding Giffords and now he’s trying to bluster his way out of it. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik at the least should have had a deputy there because of Gifford and Judge Roll who had a protectictive order signed for his protection. If anything else Duprik fell down hard on the job and is now conducting CYA actions to save his own arse.

  223. Possibly Yorkshire, but Stupnick has always been a Democrat appologist. Even though the MSM refuses to identify his party during his interviews.

  224. Hoagie says:
    10 January 2011 at 21:00
    Possibly Yorkshire, but Stupnick has always been a Democrat appologist. Even though the MSM refuses to identify his party during his interviews.

    I get the impression of All Hat, No Cattle, and a tin star from a cereal box.

  225. I see that you have both blubonnet and the always polite, well-mannered and logical Phoenician in a time of Romans prowling around this thread and your blog.

    This is because Dana, despite his many flaws, doesn’t censor out people who disagree with him.

    How’s the book going? Sales up to the double digits yet, Dave?

  226. And from a couple of years back:

    Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.), president of the freshman Democratic class, warned that right-wing groups are taking things to “a dangerous level” by manufacturing anger based on false information.

    “When you look at the fervor of some of these people who are all being whipped up by the right-wing talking heads on Fox, to me, you’re crossing a line,” Connolly said. “They’re inciting people to riot with just total distortions of facts. They think we’re going to euthanize Grandma and the government is going to take over.”

    One Democratic leadership aide summed it up more succinctly: “These people are crazy.”

    Connolly said he spoke to at least one freshman Democrat who was physically assaulted at a local event. In another instance, he said, a constituent upset about government interference in Medicare had to be reminded that Medicare is a government program.

    Doggett said his staff “was a little concerned” for his safety as he was encircled by protesters “with their signs and their devil pictures and everything very close around me.” He noted the “very juvenile manner” of protesters who followed him to his car after the event and tried to block his aide’s car as she backed out.

    But, of course, a history of wingnuts stirring up physical assaults on Democrats has nothing to do with this story, right?

  227. And a timeline of right wing terrorism in the US over the last two and a half years.

    Since July 2008, Neiwert lists 18 incidents.

    Let’s face it – the American right-wing are bigger terrorist threats to Americans than Al Qaeda.

  228. But, of course, a history of wingnuts stirring up physical assaults on Democrats has nothing to do with this story, right?

    Of course, there is no history of conservatives stirring up physical assaults on Democrats.

  229. I can see your little Google finger is going like it has a brain of its own Pho. So tell me, what do you propose we do about all these eeeevil people that you and your little Google left wing blogs call “conservatives” ( which are generally a hodge-podge of loons, racists, anti-semites and anarchists which somehow you guys get to lob in our camp)? Should we “torture conservatives to death”? Imprison them all “without trial”? Or “assassinate” them by Presidential decree? Should all voices in opposition of yours (who is not even American and shouldn’t care less) be silenced? How about limits on speech? Shuting down blogs, Networks and radio programs you don’t like? Perhaps if we round up every registered Republican and have them shot that would be to your liking? Tell us, oh brilliant one, what would you suggest?

  230. BTW Pho, aren’t you supposed to be working at this time down under? Are you stealing your employers money again by bloging when he’s paying you to do a job? Bad boy. Bad, bad boy!

  231. Hoagie: “Don’t you all look foolish now?”

    It seems you still can’t bother to read what I actually write. I’ve said almost nothing about Loughner himself, except that I believe he was likely schizophrenic.

  232. Hitchcock claims:

    And “Crooks and Liars” is aptly named. Because they get their facts wrong and make all manner of arse pulls. Typical of the left, actually.

    Every item on the list is documented, John. That said, who knows how selective this list is, as Michelle Malkin and others are prone to do in order to further their agenda and blemish that of the opponents. When done, this is not honest journalism, it is simply pure propaganda.

    I also note in this thread the continuing use of the tactic of attacking the messenger, and leaving the issues alone, like this:

    “BTW Pho, aren’t you supposed to be working at this time down under? Are you stealing your employers money again by bloging when he’s paying you to do a job? Bad boy. Bad, bad boy!”

    This informs little!

  233. Perry says this: “That said, who knows how selective this list is, as Michelle Malkin and others are prone to do in order to further their agenda and blemish that of the opponents.”

    Then he follows up with this: “I also note in this thread the continuing use of the tactic of attacking the messenger …”

    It doesn’t get much funnier than that!

  234. Let’s face it – the American right-wing are bigger terrorist threats to Americans than Al Qaeda.

    Sorry, but no one should take seriously anything said by someone who doesn’t know what the 27th Amendment says and thinks that Thomas efferson wrote the Constitution.

  235. Hube repeats:

    Sorry, but no one should take seriously anything said by someone who doesn’t know what the 27th Amendment says and thinks that Thomas efferson wrote the Constitution.

    Hube, you first made this point many months ago, to which PiaToR admitted his mistake. Your continual hammering on it says more about you than about him. In fact, yours is another example of attacking the messenger, of which I anticipate your attack on me is to follow immediately this post.

    Why not address the issues and viewpoints posted? To not do so is to withdraw from the discussion – thus, not even to debate, therefore not very productive, in my opinion.

  236. Getting directly back on topic, I think John Stewart put it very well here:

    STEWART: It’s hard to know what to say. The events this weekend in Arizona weigh heavily. Sadly, it is a feeling that this country has experienced all too often and unfortunately for our show, the closer that we have gotten towards discussing and dealing with current events the harder it becomes in situations where reality is truly sad.

    And after a minor bit of japery with correspondent John Oliver, Stewart began an unpolished monologue about this past weekend’s tragic events. While it clearly didn’t occupy the momentous emotional real estate that 9/11 did, Stewart’s response was, in many ways, parallel. It was raw in its delivery, spontaneous in its reflections, and insistent on identifying the reasons why one shouldn’t be brought to a state of despair.

    STEWART: So here we are again, stunned by a tragedy. We’ve been visited by this demon before. Our hearts go out to those injured or killed and their loved ones. How do you make sense of these types of senseless situations is really the question that seems to be on everybody’s mind. I don’t know that there’s a way to make sense of this sort of thing. As I watched the political pundit world, many are reflecting and grieving and trying to figure things out. But it’s definitely true that others are working feverishly to find the tidbit or two that will exonerate their side from blame or implicate the other. Watching that is as predictable, I think, as it is dispiriting. Did the toxic political environment cause this? A graphic image here, an ill-timed comment, violent rhetoric, those types of things. I have no fucking idea.

  237. Hube, you first made this point many months ago, to which PiaToR admitted his mistake. Your continual hammering on it says more about you than about him. In fact, yours is another example of attacking the messenger, of which I anticipate your attack on me is to follow immediately this post.

    Perry — to defend Phoeny in ANY WAY speaks volumes about not only yoru hypocrisy, but your very person… your morality. We already know you’re a moral midget (Palestinians/Israel), but to continually enforce that point makes one wonder about your very sanity.

    Where are your comments about Phoeny constantly injecting “Americans back torture” into every thread? WHERE ARE THEY?

  238. To continue on John Stewart’s punditry, here is his word on our rhetoric:

    I do think it’s important to watch our rhetoric. I think it’s a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with enemies if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction between the manifestos of paranoid madmen and what passes for acceptable political and pundit speak. It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn’t in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on teevee.

    And finaly, this, in an attempt to be more hopeful:

    I refuse to give in to that feeling of despair. There’s light in this situation. I urge everyone: Read up about those who were hurt and or killed in this shooting. You will be comforted by just how much anonymous goodness there really is in the world. You read about these people and you realize that people that you don’t even know, that you have never met, are leading lives of real dignity and goodness. And you hear about crazy, but it’s rarer than you think. I think you’ll find yourself even more impressed with Congresswoman Giffords and amazed about how much living the deceased packed into lives cut way too short. And if there is real solace in this, I think it’s that for all the hyperbole and the vitriol that’s become a part of our political process, when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words we haven’t lost our capacity to be horrified. Please let us hope we never do. Let us hope we never become numb to what real horror, what the real blood of patriots looks like when it’s spilled.

    If you would prefer to hear John Stewart’s words, go here and scroll all the way to the next to the last video.

  239. Perry noted:
    “I also note in this thread the continuing use of the tactic of attacking the messenger, and leaving the issues alone, like this:

    “BTW Pho, aren’t you supposed to be working at this time down under? Are you stealing your employers money again by bloging when he’s paying you to do a job? Bad boy. Bad, bad boy!”

    This informs little!”

    So after all Pho’s vitriol, his personal attacks, his constant name calling, his twisting of other’s words, his plucking charts and graphs out of context, his sliming of Us and Our Nation, you have dertrmined that my snide remark is the one which is “attacking the messenger”? I appologise, Perry and Pho. I now realize we can be called idiots, morons, drunks, cowards and more but according tho the new rules of discourse are not ourselves permitted to be snarky or sarcastic. Once again, I am sorry and will try not to offend in the future.

  240. Perry — to defend Phoeny in ANY WAY speaks volumes about not only yoru hypocrisy, but your very person… your morality. We already know you’re a moral midget (Palestinians/Israel), but to continually enforce that point makes one wonder about your very sanity.

    Where are your comments about Phoeny constantly injecting “Americans back torture” into every thread? WHERE ARE THEY?

    Hube came back just as predicted, his oft repeated attack the messenger routine, complete with the usual ad hominems.

    And regarding the “Americans back torture” allegations, do you think this is not true, Hube? Moreover, I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone has stepped up to challenge his allegation.

  241. And regarding the “Americans back torture” allegations, do you think this is not true, Hube? Moreover, I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone has stepped up to challenge his allegation.

    Purposely missing the point, aren’t we Perry?

    And why do you bother posting what Stewart said when you’ve clearly stated that you believe right-wing rhetoric has contributed to putting nutjobs like Loughner over the edge?

    You’re a joke.

  242. Hoagie responds:

    So after all Pho’s vitriol, his personal attacks, his constant name calling, his twisting of other’s words, his plucking charts and graphs out of context, his sliming of Us and Our Nation, you have dertrmined that my snide remark is the one which is “attacking the messenger”? I appologise, Perry and Pho. I now realize we can be called idiots, morons, drunks, cowards and more but according tho the new rules of discourse are not ourselves permitted to be snarky or sarcastic. Once again, I am sorry and will try not to offend in the future.

    Your snark doesn’t impress me, John. Nor do your many outbursts against what you call the left. Nor do PiaToR’s ad homs impress me. However, I do note that very rarely do any of you step up and challenge the well researched debating points that PiaToR presents, as if you all are intimidated by them. So instead, you step down with your knee-jerk attack the messenger routines.

    I intend to make a point of calling you folks out on this in the future, because I personally would rather see a real debate on the issues rather than all this slime on here. Dana sets the example, which makes this blog exceptional, but not too many on here follow that example, as I would include myself in that group at times. But that’s just my opinion.

    This second 9/11 is a wake up call for me, in terms of quieting the rhetoric of hatred that we have permitted to engulf our lives. The impact is negative to ourselves as individuals, and to our nation as a whole. We should take heed and change!

  243. One other thing Perry. You might want to go back to the very first post on this thread. It was I who posted it. And my comment was a simple “This is really screwed up”. I did not try to pin blame on anyone. That’s because regardless of “rhetoric” or “vitriol” or any other man-made excuses, the fact remaines each of us is responsible for our own actions. And regardless of how much you may dislike what other people may say and even the way they say it “other people” cannot make me, or you or Loughner do anything.

    “This is really screwed up” was my way of saying the entire horrible act was beyond words. I don’t give a pass to anyone because of “vitriol” or religion, or politics or anything else. I don’t “search for the root causes”, I loath the end result. This clown was a nut and you guys can turn over every rock to find a way to blame everyone from Gore to God to put reason into his actions but it won’t work. You can’t reason with crazy.

  244. Hube responds as predicted:

    And why do you bother posting what Stewart said when you’ve clearly stated that you believe right-wing rhetoric has contributed to putting nutjobs like Loughner over the edge?

    Show me where I said that, Hube! On the contrary, I intentionally have been very careful not to draw that conclusion.

    I put the Stewart piece up simply because I agree with him and like the way he expressed himself.

  245. Hoagie responds:

    And my comment was a simple “This is really screwed up”.

    I couldn’t agree with you more, John. But I don’t agree with you about ignoring root causes.

    Don’t you think that the political/media context can serve to enable certain lunatics to act out? We have had a number of such events in my lifetime, in our post WWII history, from waging wars of choice to political assassinations to bombing a federal building to practicing religious extremism, all of which are statements from fringe elements. Examination of root causes helps get at the contextual elements within our culture that enable some of these activities.

    To me, it is not enough to pass this extreme behavior off as the actions of nut jobs. Moreover, it is obvious to me that our political rhetoric is way, way over the top.

  246. Perry, as far as “the well researched debating points that PiaToR presents” are concerned his “research” is just a bunch of Googling. I (we) don’t have the time to sit around Googling all day. I have work to do, a family to attend to and friends to see and community work to prepare. I can’t sit around twelve hours a day and Google the globe. So what I try, in my own little way, to contribute here are my experiences. I realize it’s anticdotal but I’m not debating anybody, I’m bantering on a blog. But I never present myself as an expert on anything I am not expert in (Grammar and spelling are of course, off the table).

    Perry, the one thing you can be sure of, when all the chips are down, is that I, Dana, Yourkshire, Hube, Eric, Hitchcock, DNW and all the rest of us will be on your team, standing next to you when times go sour. Can you say that of Pho?

  247. Hube Hoagie continues:

    Perry, as far as “the well researched debating points that PiaToR presents” are concerned his “research” is just a bunch of Googling. I (we) don’t have the time to sit around Googling all day. I have work to do, a family to attend to and friends to see and community work to prepare. I can’t sit around twelve hours a day and Google the globe. So what I try, in my own little way, to contribute here are my experiences. I realize it’s anticdotal but I’m not debating anybody, I’m bantering on a blog. But I never present myself as an expert on anything I am not expert in (Grammar and spelling are of course, off the table).

    John, the source of PiaToR’s information should not matter. For anyone short of time to express an opinion, of course that’s part of our thing on here. Expect to be challenged, however, when a personal opinion does not take into account relevant facts. That’s where my annoying “Citation please” originates.

    However, instead of at least a personal opinion, to go the character assassination route serves no productive purpose, in my view, and makes for a weak argument, to say the least.

    Regarding when times go sour, I appreciate your sentiment and take it as genuine. I also think that Pho would respond in like manner. Although you rarely agree with him, I think he cares, otherwise he would not spend as much time as he does on here. Frankly, I think we need an outsider’s view on this blog, to motivate us to look at ourselves, even when the message appears to be anti-USA. I personally overlook the blatant anti-USA stuff as being unimportant and unimpressive. This blog would be less impressive without PiaToR sticking his pin into our arses!

  248. Perry asks:”Don’t you think that the political/media context can serve to enable certain lunatics to act out?”
    Perhaps Perry, but is there any means to control it without limiting our right to free speech? I think not.

    You follow up with:”… from waging wars of choice to political assassinations to bombing a federal building to practicing religious extremism, all of which are statements from fringe elements.”

    First off what you deem a war of choice might be seen as a war of neccessity by other Americans. Dare I say even a war of survival? And how do you stop the practice of “religious extremism”? In whose eyes is a certain practice extreme. Either we have Freedom of Religion or we don’t.

    Well, I gotta get moving. As you know Perry, we are expecting another 6-8″ of snow today and tomorrow so I have errands to run before it starts. If I don’t get in gear a bunch of old geezers won’t have food in the storm. TTFN.

    Part of living in Liberty is the acceptance that some of those “fringe elements” will abuse our freedoms. It comes with the territory. But I as a republican (small R) refuse to surrender the God given rights of all men because some men abuse them.

  249. Show me where I said that, Hube!

    OMG. I’d say “just look at past comments in this thread” but you’ll somehow attempt to say “NUH-UH!!”

    As I said: Joke. You’re it.

  250. Don’t you think that the political/media context can serve to enable certain lunatics to act out?

    But, in this case, there’s no evidence to support this idea. It’s like I said about the Tucson sheriff – he should have stuck to the facts and not injected his political opinions into the mix.

  251. Regarding when times go sour, I appreciate your sentiment and take it as genuine. I also think that Pho would respond in like manner. Although you rarely agree with him, I think he cares

    I have yet to see a single sign of this. Indeed, I don’t think I’ve ever seen him utter a kind word about or to anybody. Even in the case of this shooting tragedy, he seems far more interested in using it to get in his personal partisan attacks (on Sarah Palin, for instance) than he does in expressing even the smallest bit of compassion for the victims. He is, nearly all the time, a thoroughly nasty and unpleasant person, indeed, I don’t think he cares about anyone or anything besides himself.

    otherwise he would not spend as much time as he does on here

    Best as I can tell, he posts here because this is one of the few blogs who haven’t banned him for trollish behavior. Indeed, though he is often quite rude and insulting to Dana, attacking his motives and morals, etc., Dana nonetheless has the patience to put up with it.

    Seriously, Perry, you only support Pho because you agree with him most of the time. I am certain that, if he were a conservative and behaved this way, you would denounce him in the strongest terms.

    And that’s the last I’m gonna say on this topic. The little slug probably gets a thrill just because we still pay him any attention, so it’s probably best not to.

  252. Sorry, but no one should take seriously anything said by someone who doesn’t know what the 27th Amendment says and thinks that Thomas efferson wrote the Constitution.

    Hube, you first made this point many months ago, to which PiaToR admitted his mistake

    The reason this is relevant is that someone who would make such an obvious mistake about a core part of our history obviously is quite ignorant of America, and perhaps should approach this American site with a bit more humility.

  253. Let’s face it – the American right-wing are bigger terrorist threats to Americans than Al Qaeda.

    This is perhaps the most ignorant, indeed, downright insane comment I have ever read on this blog. Makes Blu’s Truther stuff sound reasonable by comparison.

  254. Seriously, Perry, you only support Pho because you agree with him most of the time. I am certain that, if he were a conservative and behaved this way, you would denounce him in the strongest terms.

    Of course he would. Everyone knows it.

  255. Eric says:
    11 January 2011 at 10:41

    Let’s face it – the American right-wing are bigger terrorist threats to Americans than Al Qaeda.

    This is perhaps the most ignorant, indeed, downright insane comment I have ever read on this blog. Makes Blu’s Truther stuff sound reasonable by comparison.

    What’s dangling out there is BO’s redistribution of wealth promise. If a certain group feels they are left out – then watch out.

  256. I forgot how radical Phoey was until I read his agonizing attempts to debate this subject here. Good stuff, you’ve got to love it. For the Left to even attempt to touch this subject is jaw-dropping stunning after listening to 10 years of vicious and nasty attacks on Bush and now Palin. What an amazing group of shameless, pathetic hypocrites. Do our progressive friends really want to play that game? Dont miss The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

  257. Both sides have their nuts. The liberals speak out against theirs, and shun them. The conservatives elect theirs to high office, and pay them millions to speak daily on radio and TV.

  258. Nangleator says:
    11 January 2011 at 13:26
    Both sides have their nuts. The liberals speak out against theirs, and shun them. The conservatives elect theirs to high office, and pay them millions to speak daily on radio and TV.

    Really a broad and generalized statement that cites no specifics to prove your point.

  259. “I do note that very rarely do any of you step up and challenge the well researched debating points that PiaToR presents …”

    That is the kind of autistic nonsense is what makes “arguing” with you pointless, Perry.

    What I would be interested in hearing more about sometime though, is your volunteered admission of difficulties with “political science” and logic. For example, what kind of particular difficulties did you experience in these studies?

  260. What I would be interested in hearing more about sometime though, is your volunteered admission of difficulties with “political science” and logic. For example, what kind of particular difficulties did you experience in these studies?

    Perry admitted he took no logic classes in college and confessed that may well have been the reason he struggled so in his poli sci coursework, his lack of understanding of logic.

  261. Dave the Sage says:
    11 January 2011 at 12:57 (Edit)
    1. Do our progressive friends really want to play that game?

    2. Dont miss The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

    1. Yes they do.

    2. Posted on this monnster thread yesterday

    What they won’t acknoledge is the biggest Progressive Voice in Frances Piven and friends are calling for a Revolution to create Utopia and an equal distributive state.

  262. Both sides have their nuts. The liberals speak out against theirs, and shun them. The conservatives elect theirs to high office, and pay them millions to speak daily on radio and TV.

    As usual, an assertion not supported by the evidence.

    Just off the top of my head — examples that disprove your stupidity: Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Bill Press, Keith Olbermann, Jesse Jackson, Alan Grayson, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi.

    Oops.

  263. John Hitchcock says:

    11 January 2011 at 14:05

    What I would be interested in hearing more about sometime though, is your volunteered admission of difficulties with “political science” and logic. For example, what kind of particular difficulties did you experience in these studies?

    Perry admitted he took no logic classes in college and confessed that may well have been the reason he struggled so in his poli sci coursework, his lack of understanding of logic.

    Yes, I recall his comment, but I am not sure what he sees as the connection between his lack of training in logic, and his difficulty in understanding “political science”. Political science is not generally thought of nowadays as a deductive enterprise.

    Maybe it’s the whole: from legal stipulation to deduced consequences, thing, rather than the descriptive portion of it. In that case what Perry has a problem with is categorization processes and deducing consequences from them. Which seems a bit odd for a “scientist”.

  264. This is perhaps the most ignorant, indeed, downright insane comment I have ever read on this blog

    Eighteeen examples of right-wing using terror on American soil over the last two and a half years.

    How many times has Al Qaeda used terror on American soil over the last few years?

    The American right-wing are bigger terrorist threats to Americans than Al Qaeda.

    And regarding the “Americans back torture” allegations, do you think this is not true, Hube? Moreover, I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone has stepped up to challenge his allegation.

    The reason why I keep bringing it up is because it serves as an example of the sort of fact that breaks the wingnut narrative. America does torture prisoners to death, but wingnuts can’t deal with this fact. The vitriol and ad hom attacks are a tribute to the inability to actually engage with reality – the wingnuts here cannot mentally acknowledge something they know to be true, and that contradiction is driving them mad.

    America tortures prisoners to death.

    If the right-wing was able to deal with this, perhaps they might want to actually improve America.

  265. On the Utter Futility of Attempting Honest Debate with Unrepentant Hypocrites:

    Ask yourself, Is it worth your time and energy to attempt honest debate with Leftists? A comparison of the current atrocity with similar sneak attacks from the recent past is an excellent way to bring the issue into sharp focus.

    The Left’s naked hypocrisy is revealed in their reaction to the Fort Hood massacre. When Nidal Hassan murdered 13 and wounded many more, Leftists denied that the hateful violent rhetoric of Islamic jihadist ideology motivated Hassan. They were also quick to assure us Islamic rhetoric wasn’t responsible for Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to bomb an airplane on Christmas Day 2 years ago either.

    When it comes to the extraordinarily violent rhetoric of Islamic terrorists, our homegrown Leftists are quick to assure us there’s no connection, none at all. This blatant hypocrisy is nothing new for the Left, they’ve been at it for years.

    Was violent Leftist rhetoric responsible for motivating John Hinckley to shoot Ronald Reagan? Of course not. What about Sirhan Sirhan? What did Bobby Kennedy say that was so offensive it inspired his assassination?

    Hypocritically, the Left elevates its violent thugs to cultural icons. Recall the violent atrocities of Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn. They conspired to commit mass murder against US soldiers at Fort Dix. Their violent Leftist rhetoric was published in “Prairie Fire” and dedicated to the political assassin, Sirhan Sirhan. Barrack Obama didn’t reject any association with Leftist terrorists, he launched his political career in the Chicago home of Bill and Bernardine, and with the blessing of the odious hate mongers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

    So, what’s the point of engaging in debate with such flagrant hypocrites? They have eyes but refuse to see, they have ears but will not listen, and they have tongues but utter only lies. You can cast pearls before swine, and you can sow the wind, but what reward will you have earned, and at what cost to you?

  266. Yorkshire says:
    11 January 2011 at 14:07

    Dave the Sage says:
    11 January 2011 at 12:57 (Edit)
    1. Do our progressive friends really want to play that game?

    2. Dont miss The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

    1. Yes they do.

    2. Posted on this monnster thread yesterday

    What they won’t acknoledge is the biggest Progressive Voice in Frances Piven and friends are calling for a Revolution to create Utopia and an equal distributive state.”

    This Cloward-Piven matter which you have brought up a number of times, is something we should keep regularly before us as an example of what the left is really after.

    Although the particular activities of Cloward and Piven predate my political consciousness, the effects of their strategy in the world around us was easily enough observed and labeled without any such awareness.

    It’s as if someone shielded from knowledge of their particular program and intentions had years later looked around, observed the existence in the United States of a Democrat Party client class, and wondered if such a phenomenon really could have merely been a development incidental to, and an unintended consequence of, good liberal-intentions misfired. And of course that was just the case for so many of us; until we were reminded or informed that that had been the intention of these left-wing miscreants and enemies of liberty, all along. (Gee I hope I have not been too uncivil here to our Marxist “friends”.)

    So, when that sensitive pop-culture diva from the blogging hinterlands sees the words Democrat Party “client class” here, and scurries over to Dana’s house to indignantly object to the use of the term, it becomes clear that someone else could benefit from being reminded, or confronted with, this bit of social history too.

  267. Dave, having a president take our nation to war, illegally, dishonestly, killing many hundreds of thousands of innocent people, makes us angry, so being hateful about a president that brought that about, is more than reasonable, not to mention, what Phoe continues to point out, we torture prisoners to death. Look, I’m not happy about Obama following through with it either, so frankly, I won’t apologize for my hate, but I will not engage in violence either.

    Our next step, as democracies fall, is for the “enemy” to be the “homegrown” ones, or so they say, we that expose their crimes. Who do you think does the most at exposing them? Yeah, folks like me. “The next grand suspect will be all of the Truth Movement, and we will have to state our position on non=violence over and over.

    And frankly, the fact that the crazy guy knew about 9-11-01 is pretty much besides the point, because so many people do now. But, they will try to paint us as all wild-eyed, despite the enormous good work so many have done, working for the victims’ families of that day, trying to get them health care, the first responders, etc.

  268. The reason why I keep bringing it up is because it serves as an example of the sort of fact that breaks the wingnut narrative. America does torture prisoners to death, but wingnuts can’t deal with this fact. The vitriol and ad hom attacks are a tribute to the inability to actually engage with reality – the wingnuts here cannot mentally acknowledge something they know to be true, and that contradiction is driving them mad.

    America tortures prisoners to death.

    If the right-wing was able to deal with this, perhaps they might want to actually improve America.

    The reason I keep bringing up abortion is because it serves as an example of the sort of fact that breaks the moonbat narrative. New Zealand and other supposedly “care about life” Western nations murder innocent babies, but moonbats can’t deal with this fact. The vitriol and ad hom attacks are a tribute to the inability to actually engage with reality – the moonbats here cannot mentally acknowledge something they know to be true, and that contradiction is driving them mad.

  269. Nangleator says:
    11 January 2011 at 13:26

    Both sides have their nuts. The liberals speak out against theirs, and shun them.

    What liberal nuts do you shun?

  270. The Left’s naked hypocrisy is revealed in their reaction to the Fort Hood massacre. When Nidal Hassan murdered 13 and wounded many more, Leftists denied that the hateful violent rhetoric of Islamic jihadist ideology motivated Hassan. They were also quick to assure us Islamic rhetoric wasn’t responsible for Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to bomb an airplane on Christmas Day 2 years ago either.

    Once again you demonstrate your inability to deal with facts, ropelight.

    Murders such as Hassan are reasons to decry prominent Muslim figures calling for violence and egging on terrorist attacks. Strangely, there are very few if any such figures in America.

    They are not reason to condemn all Muslims as terrorists or to justify bigotry and repression against them.

    Provide a cite that “Leftists denied that the hateful violent rhetoric of Islamic jihadist ideology motivated Hassan” or be shown as the lying fool you so obviously are.

    To extend this analogy, no one has yet claimed that all right-wingers are terrorists (fools and poltroons, maybe), nor has anyone advocated locking people up simply for being right-wing.

  271. the wingnuts here cannot mentally acknowledge something they know to be true, and that contradiction is driving them mad.

    Hube writes:

    The reason why I keep bringing it up is because it serves as an example of the sort of fact that breaks the wingnut narrative. America does torture prisoners to death, but wingnuts can’t deal with this fact. The vitriol and ad hom attacks are a tribute to the inability to actually engage with reality – the wingnuts here cannot mentally acknowledge something they know to be true, and that contradiction is driving them mad.

    America tortures prisoners to death.

    If the right-wing was able to deal with this, perhaps they might want to actually improve America.

    The reason I keep bringing up abortion is because it serves as an example of the sort of fact that breaks the moonbat narrative. New Zealand and other supposedly “care about life” Western nations murder innocent babies, but moonbats can’t deal with this fact. The vitriol and ad hom attacks are a tribute to the inability to actually engage with reality – the moonbats here cannot mentally acknowledge something they know to be true, and that contradiction is driving them mad.

    Q.E.D.

  272. Eighteeen examples of right-wing using terror on American soil over the last two and a half years.

    Make that nineteen.

  273. ropelight says:
    11 January 2011 at 14:40

    On the Utter Futility of Attempting Honest Debate with Unrepentant Hypocrites:

    Ask yourself, Is it worth your time and energy to attempt honest debate with Leftists? A comparison of the current atrocity with similar sneak attacks from the recent past is an excellent way to bring the issue into sharp focus.

    The Left’s naked hypocrisy is revealed in their reaction to the Fort Hood massacre. When Nidal Hassan murdered 13 and wounded many more, Leftists denied that the hateful violent rhetoric of Islamic jihadist ideology motivated Hassan. They were also quick to assure us Islamic rhetoric wasn’t responsible for Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to bomb an airplane on Christmas Day 2 years ago either.

    When it comes to the extraordinarily violent rhetoric of Islamic terrorists, our homegrown Leftists are quick to assure us there’s no connection, none at all. This blatant hypocrisy is nothing new for the Left, they’ve been at it for years.

    Was violent Leftist rhetoric responsible for motivating John Hinckley to shoot Ronald Reagan? Of course not. What about Sirhan Sirhan? What did Bobby Kennedy say that was so offensive it inspired his assassination?

    Hypocritically, the Left elevates its violent thugs to cultural icons. Recall the violent atrocities of Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn. They conspired to commit mass murder against US soldiers at Fort Dix. Their violent Leftist rhetoric was published in “Prairie Fire” and dedicated to the political assassin, Sirhan Sirhan. Barrack Obama didn’t reject any association with Leftist terrorists, he launched his political career in the Chicago home of Bill and Bernardine, and with the blessing of the odious hate mongers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

    So, what’s the point of engaging in debate with such flagrant hypocrites? They have eyes but refuse to see, they have ears but will not listen, and they have tongues but utter only lies. You can cast pearls before swine, and you can sow the wind, but what reward will you have earned, and at what cost to you?”

    No it’s not worth it since what they are actually about is remolding you to fit their vision of a satisfactory humanity, or squeezing you out through political pressure on the way. “Debate” is for the left is just a disruption tactic they use when they don’t have the realistic option of violence.

    The conservative can live without the lefty and even allow the lefty alone to pursue its Utopian schemes voluntarily among the like-minded. The left however cannot reciprocate. Socialism is for them, an all society proposition. A socialism composed of the natural socialists and their dependents just results in a ship of fools and incompetents sailing in circles, never arriving; and they know it full well. Which is why they cannot, leave you alone. Their very lives long term depend on their access to non-socialists.

    That even they recognize this principle is proved by their individual health care mandate admission. If it were not true, Perry and kind would start a Red Hammer and Red Sickle health care network based on their ideological principles. As I said before, if a country of 5 or 10 million can come up with a “health care” system that the lefties admire, why cannot 20 30 million of these left-wing fuck-ups in this country develop a voluntary health care system that will achieve their ends for themselves and their like-minded kind, without government coercion?

  274. Yeah, Hoagie, shame on us for aspiring to higher ideals, like respect for human rights, and wanting a nation that might be up to standards the civilized world regards as respect for innocent lives. Shame on us.

    And as you all blather on about socialism, remember that the most livable countries in this world are socialist.

    Are you really that ignorant? Never mind answering, because if you say you aren’t, I won’t believe you. Now is the time to attempt to diminish my words, by screaming, “Troofer, troofer, you are not worth listening to” as so often is the case as you all around here continue to get pelted by reality, with real words with real significance. You lash out at anything.

    Here we have Hube now, deflecting, changing the subject to abortion, equating a fetus with the conciousness of maybe an amoeba, size about the same as a fingernail, as the same as an actual baby. Not minding that a slaughter of walking talking children are getting blown up as we speak, and he of course is unmoved by that.

  275. Blu, Jared Lee Loughner is a twoofer who values the Communist Manifesto. You don’t see conservatives accusing twooferism or communism for Loughner’s actions. Perhaps you should learn a lesson or two from that. Not likely to happen since you’re such a far-gone nutcase, but miracles have happened before.

  276. DNW: “What liberal nuts do you shun?”

    Good question, and very difficult for me to answer, because I see so little on the sites I read. Mostly, inflammatory posts get deleted before I see them. See, they’re treated like the fringe. Your fringe is treated like the mainstream.

    I was reminded of this by a lovely article I read today. It’s got a challenge in it.

    http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/01/message-to-the-right-wing-they-do-it-too-is-not-only-not-equivalent-its-not-true.html

    The leadership of the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement are not only failing to condemn the hate speech and violent rhetoric that may have led to this; they are actively trying to make it someone else’s fault. Look, you childish assholes; the fact that “Bobby did it, too!” didn’t absolve you of responsibility when you were a kid, pleading for mercy from your mother, and it certainly doesn’t work now. The Tea Party, with the quiet acquiescence and even the assistance of the Republican Party, “targeted” Gabrielle Giffords, and someone shot her. It may have been coincidence, but the fact that it’s even plausible should make it difficult for teabaggers to sleep at night. I didn’t say it would, but it should.

    Here’s a challenge for all of you righties out there. I want you to comb the archives and come up with any hate speech or violent rhetoric from a prominent liberal that wasn’t condemned by most liberals, and I’ll reply with at least three from the right.

  277. DNW does it again:

    And of course that was just the case for so many of us; until we were reminded or informed that that had been the intention of these left-wing miscreants and enemies of liberty, all along. (Gee I hope I have not been too uncivil here to our Marxist “friends”.)

    No, DNW, your problem, repeated frequently on here, is that you deal with a self-defined label in your condemnations and screeds. Additionally, your condemnations, there are plenty, are given in bigoted and inflammatory terms, which does little to add to the discussion, in my view. Finally, your rants are given in absolutist terms, as though you are your own citation, or god, often making up stuff to suit your objective.

    Exactly what do you think you are accomplishing, except to please the choir, many of whom may not even understand your rhetoric, hardly aimed at the common man? Some of those who do understand see clearly through your mischief!

    What other response is there to make to your stuff?

  278. Nangleator’s challenge:

    Here’s a challenge for all of you righties out there. I want you to comb the archives and come up with any hate speech or violent rhetoric from a prominent liberal that wasn’t condemned by most liberals, and I’ll reply with at least three from the right.

    Excellent challenge, Nangleator. I’m looking forward to the responses from our friends on the right, if any.

    And for the record, it is worth reviewing Rush Limbaugh’s statement on Jared Loughner’s alleged killings and shootings:

    What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He’s sitting there in jail. He knows what’s going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he’s just a victim. He’s the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America…this guy clearly understands he’s getting all the attention and he understands he’s got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he’s not convicted of murder – but something lesser.”

  279. No, DNW, your problem, repeated frequently on here, is that you deal with a self-defined label in your condemnations and screeds.

    You haven’t mentioned that he frequently uses eliminationist rhetoric, insinuating that the only solution for good conservative Americans is the same applied to Giffords. He’s been a bit more circumspect on it since I started calling him on it, but I’ve already linked to previous comments.

  280. What can one say when someone says this to you, or about anybody on here?

    Not likely to happen since you’re such a far-gone nutcase, ….

    Must be one of those rotten atheists!

  281. Excellent challenge, Nangleator. I’m looking forward to the responses from our friends on the right, if any.

    Oh I get it. Once Nang’s first “challenge” was easily met, he then moves the goal posts.

    Now, when we do come up with such instances and you cannot prove that “most” liberals condemned it, what will be the new challenge, hmm?

  282. Example #1: Show us where “most liberals” condemned the following:

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

  283. Example #2: Show us where “most liberals” condemned the following:

    “You rat bastards are going to cause another Murrah federal building explosion,” said Malloy. “[M]aybe at that point Beck will do the honorable thing and blow his brains out.”

    He disgustingly continued, “Maybe at that point, Limbaugh will do the honorable thing and just gobble up enough – enough Viagra that he becomes absolutely rigid and keels over dead.”

    And continued, “Maybe then O’Reilly will just drink a vat of that poison he spews out on America every night and choke to death.”

  284. Example #3: Show us where “most liberals” condemned the following by Greenpeace:

    And we need to inspire, engage and empower everyone in between… from the AirPlotters stopping the expansion of Heathrow by purchasing bits of the proposed runway to the volunteer activists that have been making life hell for fossil fuel lobbyists in the US.

    Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

    The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

    If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

    If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    And we be many, but you be few.

  285. Example #4: Show us where “most liberals” condemned the following by Ted Rall:

    Quoting John Locke, Rall argues that “the people have an obligation to revolt,” and that “nothing will radicalize the American citizen more than being thrown out of their home by a bank.” Citing frustration with both parties, who he called “in bed with the duopoly,” Rall also noted that “the American left has been very peaceful since the early ’70s… and where has it gotten us?”

    Ratigan did not seem particularly flustered by the proposition, though he did ask if Rall saw any alternatives, especially peaceful political dissent, or what he called “European semi-violent revolt.” “If you could get everybody to do it,” Rall responded, “it could work, but you can’t even get everyone to stop littering.”

    So yes, the [clip above] is a discussion on cable news over the various merits of violent left-wing overthrow of the American government – signed, sealed, and delivered with a cherry on top for those on the right looking for evidence to counter the claim that it’s their side that’s doing the fearmongering.

  286. Example #5: Show us where “most liberals” condemned the following by Slate Editor David Plotz:

    “And we shouldn’t talk to them, try to persuade them,” he continued. “We should burn them down. We should go after them with pitchforks, knives, guns, clubs we find, mace – anything, because it’s appalling. You only need to read the story that ProPublica did about the hedge fund Magnetar and what they did or Michael Lewis’ ‘The Big Short’ or these stories about Goldman to realize these guys are corrupt.”

  287. Example #6: Show us where “most liberals” condemned the following by Democrat Kentucky governor Steve Beshear:

    “When I mention that Democrats are problem solvers, I can think of only one Republican who can be a problem solver — that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take George on a hunting trip.

  288. Good effort, Hube.

    Since this was Nangleator’s challenge, I’ll defer, except to say that I never heard of any of those statements. I for one disagree with these types of threats as I assume most Americans would, regardless of party. Whether any were publicly condemned, I have no idea. I would hope so!

  289. DNW says:
    11 January 2011 at 14:58

    Nangleator says:
    11 January 2011 at 13:26

    Both sides have their nuts. The liberals speak out against theirs, and shun them.

    What liberal nuts do you shun?

    Then:

    Nangleator says:
    11 January 2011 at 16:06

    DNW: “What liberal nuts do you shun?”

    Good question, and very difficult for me to answer, because I see so little on the sites I read. Mostly, inflammatory posts get deleted before I see them. See, they’re treated like the fringe. Your fringe is treated like the mainstream.

    So, the deal is that you can’t think of who you would shun (someone mentioned Ted Rall) but you are sure that you were still right in you claim. Your evidence being that what you do not see must have been removed and therefore others have shunned the lefty nutcases for you.

    Guess you never heard of Air America and Randi Rhodes , either.

  290. I’d like to know where “most liberals” would have even heard those statements. Most of them are news to me. Hell, I haven’t even heard of Beshear or Kanjorski. Mike Malloy operates at the fringes of talk radio.

    Anyway, my focus has been on moving forward. GOP party leader Roger Ailes, who earlier this year referred to liberals as Nazis, made the biggest leap by issuing a memo to the FOX clan to tone it down. That’ll take care of a lot of the problem, but there’s still the problem of talk radio. GOP party leader Rush Limbaugh, noted blatant racist btw who has probably ten or twenty times the audience of Malloy, has offered us the first new salvo, “What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country (Democrats).”

    We’ll see how the kinder, gentler GOP responds to this. Instapundit is busy insulting Tim Pawlenty’s manhood for dinging Sarah Palin’s crosshairs.

    Note, that I said, “crosshairs.” Not surveyor’s scope sights, Hitchcock. Your link offered one selected example of a rifle scope, and by the way, any person who ever looked at that map before today saw crosshairs. I really don’t give a rat’s ass if Sarah Palin’s graphic design artist wanted to incorporate some plausible deniability, but you’ve illustrated what a complete hack you are…again.

  291. DNW:
    This Cloward-Piven matter which you have brought up a number of times, is something we should keep regularly before us as an example of what the left is really after.

    Although the particular activities of Cloward and Piven predate my political consciousness, the effects of their strategy in the world around us was easily enough observed and labeled without any such awareness.

    It’s as if someone shielded from knowledge of their particular program and intentions had years later looked around, observed the existence in the United States of a Democrat Party client class, and wondered if such a phenomenon really could have merely been a development incidental to, and an unintended consequence of, good liberal-intentions misfired. And of course that was just the case for so many of us; until we were reminded or informed that that had been the intention of these left-wing miscreants and enemies of liberty, all along. (Gee I hope I have not been too uncivil here to our Marxist “friends”.)

    So, when that sensitive pop-culture diva from the blogging hinterlands sees the words Democrat Party “client class” here, and scurries over to Dana’s house to indignantly object to the use of the term, it becomes clear that someone else could benefit from being reminded, or confronted with, this bit of social history too.

    Where do you think we got ACORN and Community Organizers???? BO is definitely a Cloward-Piven devotee.

  292. Perry says:
    11 January 2011 at 16:08

    DNW does it again:

    And of course that was just the case for so many of us; until we were reminded or informed that that had been the intention of these left-wing miscreants and enemies of liberty, all along. (Gee I hope I have not been too uncivil here to our Marxist “friends”.)

    No, DNW, your problem, repeated frequently on here, is that you deal with a self-defined label in your condemnations and screeds.

    Well, I think you meant to say “self-applied, and you certainly have already agreed that I had accurately tagged your relativistic and psychological definition of the term “truth”.

    Additionally, your condemnations, there are plenty, are given in bigoted and inflammatory terms, which does little to add to the discussion, in my view.

    I was addressing Yorkshire regarding the importance of his references to Cloward and Piven and their client-class building strategy, not soliciting your approval for my remarks. I already know what you think, and a guy like you who thinks that that malevolent Maoist sack of, Bill Ayers, has been redeemed, is someone I wouldn’t bother trying to convince on any point of politics or morals.

    Finally, your rants are given in absolutist terms, as though you are your own citation, or god, often making up stuff to suit your objective.

    You have already admitted that you are no sound judge of whether I should speak with some confidence when it comes to political science or logic. You didn’t even know what the square of opposition was. The same I think you would (or should) agree applies to history and philosophy even more so. Of course one needn’t be a logician to get a laugh out of that clueless “Q.E.D.” spouting idiot New Zealander who is so ignorant that he couldn’t recognize the distribution replacement theorem when it was thrown smack in his face. But you admire his expert opinion all the same. So that kind of pegs your judgment for what it is worth, doesn’t it.

    Exactly what do you think you are accomplishing, except to please the choir, many of whom may not even understand your rhetoric, hardly aimed at the common man? Some of those who do understand see clearly through your mischief!

    There’s not a conservative or libertarian leaning commenter on Dana’s blog who has not amply demonstrated that he or she is not only already familiar with, but also handily using the same concepts I am employing. There is no mystery to anything I am saying unless you have the education of a typical lefty.

    What other response is there to make to your stuff?

    You could have responded to the comment that was actually directed to you.

    You could have answered the question as to why you said that you found political science so difficult to comprehend, and how you think studying logic would have helped you be a better student.

  293. I would like to state that there have been threats against me at Pattericos, as I present information about the findings of the Truth movement. As their nasty threatening comments are being called out by me, I said that they were not doing anything to counter the assumption that the Right wing are the more violent ones. This is what I got coming at me…

    #

    “This does not help your case as being the side that does not want to kill people for saying things.”

    Silly girl.

    That’s exactly what I want to do. Take, lying leftist traitors who spew Lord Haw Haw type propaganda (including Truther propaganda) that hurts our war effort and helps our enemies, put them on trial for treason, convict them and then hang them by the neck ’til they’re dead, dead, dead….just like the Brits did to William Joyce after WWII.

    Whatever gave you the idea that I didn’t want to have people like you killed for what you say?

    Comment by Dave Surls — 1/11/2011 @ 4:00 pm

  294. Blubonnet says:
    11 January 2011 at 14:55 (Edit)
    Dave,

    And frankly, the fact that the crazy guy knew about 9-11-01 is pretty much besides the point, because so many people do now. But, they will try to paint us as all wild-eyed, despite the enormous good work so many have done, working for the victims’ families of that day, trying to get them health care, the first responders, etc.

    One thing, I don’t think any of us here would ever think of you going out and blowing away a dozen people, ever.

  295. the only debating skill progressives have is:

    “shut up”

    or

    “shut up or we will call you racists”

    or

    “shut up or we will call you killers at our earliest convenience”

    or some use:

    “i win” sometimes seen as “i won”

    lol

  296. Yorkshire says:

    11 January 2011 at 18:56

    Hube says:
    11 January 2011 at 17:02

    Q.E.D.

    Q.E.D.

    Quite an Educated Dimwit or What is said, is said. Same difference.

    The problem for Phoenician in a time of Romans is of course, that he is not educated: as his repeated pratfalls when trying to deploy Latin or Latinate terms has revealed.

    Then too, there is his extensive knowledge of German, grandly demonstrated by his comic inability to differentiate between the sounds of “night, and “nothing” as he tried to cobble together a knowing appearing reference to one of the most notorious events in the rise of Nazism.

    He knows a lot about American history too. Just ask Hube.

    Some places in New Zealand either must be very hard up for librarians, or accept preposterously low standards for some other reason.

  297. assovertincups says:
    11 January 2011 at 19:15
    the only debating skill progressives have is:

    “i win” sometimes seen as “i won”
    lol

    That HW. He needs to say that self-affirmation everyday whether he won or not, and/or not sure of what he won, if anything. But if it keeps him docile and happy, then we’re happy for him.

  298. Yorkshire says:

    11 January 2011 at 19:04

    DNW:
    This Cloward-Piven matter which you have brought up a number of times, is something we should keep regularly before us as an example of what the left is really after.

    Although the particular activities of Cloward and Piven predate my political consciousness, the effects of their strategy in the world around us was easily enough observed and labeled without any such awareness.

    It’s as if someone shielded from knowledge of their particular program and intentions had years later looked around, observed the existence in the United States of a Democrat Party client class, and wondered if such a phenomenon really could have merely been a development incidental to, and an unintended consequence of, good liberal-intentions misfired. And of course that was just the case for so many of us; until we were reminded or informed that that had been the intention of these left-wing miscreants and enemies of liberty, all along. (Gee I hope I have not been too uncivil here to our Marxist “friends”.)

    So, when that sensitive pop-culture diva from the blogging hinterlands sees the words Democrat Party “client class” here, and scurries over to Dana’s house to indignantly object to the use of the term, it becomes clear that someone else could benefit from being reminded, or confronted with, this bit of social history too.

    Where do you think we got ACORN and Community Organizers???? BO is definitely a Cloward-Piven devotee.

    It was only relatively recently that I read the actual article wherein they mapped out in no uncertain terms, and without equivocation, that they not only intended to overload the welfare system in order to further weaken (dual) federalism and prepare the way for a Federal program of direct income redistribution, but that they wished to create a political client class via these tools on the road to that end. Put bluntly: to use pity to fund a movement to use democracy to end democracy; and your own money to wage that political war against you.

    And Perry sincerely thinks we are being unfair in describing what they are up to?

  299. 347 posts later we haven’t said much of anything about the condition of Congresswoman Giffords. According to TV reports she is breathing on her own (but they are leaving the breathing tube in as a guard against pneumonia), no apreciable Brain Swelling, and can move extremities. A miracle amongst the tragedy.

  300. “Yes, We’re Putting Liberals In The Crosshairs”

    by John Hawkins, Right Wing News, January 11, 2012

    “The Left can take their sanctimonious, politically correct, hypocritical horseflop about militaristic language being applied to politics and they can turn it sideways and shove it straight up their candy asses.

    Here at Right Wing News, where our slogan is “Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity,” not only are we targeting liberal politicians for defeat, we want to beat liberalism to death with a shovel.

    Like our President said, when the other side pulls out a knife, our side should pull out a gun — rhetorically, of course. We’re engaged in political warfare for the soul of this country, we make no apologies for it, and we’re not going to curb how we talk about it because liberals are having so much fun exploiting a tragic event.

    Of course, political violence aimed at other Americans is unacceptable. No one on this website is going to urge you to physically harm someone on the other side of our political debate.

    But, we do want to kick their asses politically. We’re locked, we’re loaded, and we’re ready for political combat. If that’s too tough for you, then step out of the crossfire and quit, you wussy…”

  301. “Yorkshire says:

    if it keeps him docile and happy, then we’re happy for him.”

    You talking about Franken’s alter ego Stuart Whatshisname?

  302. Gosh, he said HW. Does that mean I’m admitting guilt by suspecting it’s me, since I’m HW and I like to say I’ve won after I win?

    BTW, DNW, I might have missed it, but what were your thoughts on the attempted murder of that parasitic liberal organism called Giffords?

  303. Instapundit reader, William Girardot asked, “Given that Jared Loughner registered as an independent, isn’t it time to condemn the vitriol of the middle? We have borne the milquetoast rhetoric of the moderates for too long!”

  304. HW, you’ve never won a battle of wits in your life, and your caricature in your parenthetical statement is idiotic. But that’s to be expected, considering the source of the caricature.

  305. Bloomberg News is reporting a sharp increase in gun sales, expecially the Glock 9mm.

    “Glock Pistol Sales Surge in Aftermath of Arizona Shootings”
    By Michael Riley – Jan 11, 2011

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

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

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

  306. Good effort, Hube.

    Since this was Nangleator’s challenge, I’ll defer, except to say that I never heard of any of those statements. I for one disagree with these types of threats as I assume most Americans would, regardless of party. Whether any were publicly condemned, I have no idea. I would hope so!

    It doesn’t surprise me that you haven’t heard of these — mainly because the MSM doesn’t concentrate on statements by philosophically like-minded people. Nevertheless, the challenge was met so maybe you can talk some much needed sense into that idiot Whistler who contradicts himself all in the space of a few sentences:

    Anyway, my focus has been on moving forward.

    LOL … “forward” not as in “moving on,” but only in continuing the same shit:

    GOP party leader Roger Ailes, who earlier this year referred to liberals as Nazis, made the biggest leap by issuing a memo to the FOX clan to tone it down. That’ll take care of a lot of the problem, but there’s still the problem of talk radio. GOP party leader Rush Limbaugh, noted blatant racist btw who has probably ten or twenty times the audience of Malloy, has offered us the first new salvo, “What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country (Democrats).”

    Aww, the “first new salvo.” If you pathetic a-holes didn’t act like the 6 year-olds pampered brats that you are since Saturday, there wouldn’t even BE a need for a new salvo.

  307. “HW, you’ve never won…”

    Gee, righties are usually so forthcoming about their defeats.

    Indeed, the same day Palin posted the image with the scopes over congressional districts on her Facebook page, she tweeted, “Don’t retreat, Instead – RELOAD” and asked her followers to check out her Facebook page for details.

    As well, there has been no national political figure in American life more eager to correct media misconceptions in real time that Palin, raising questions about why she did not object in the spring of 2010 when controversy erupted over her imagery, which even Giffords described on national television as representing gun “crosshairs.”

    One clue to Palin’s actual intent comes from a Nov. 4, 2010 Twitter posting where she crows about her record using the targeting map. “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats?

    You know, I really don’t want to get into IT WAS PALIN’S FAULT mode, but the problem is you guys just cannot stop bullshitting. So now the marks every person including Palin thought were crosshairs, the day after one of the people in the crosshairs gets shot, are surveyor’s marks. The fact that you swallowed that line hook and sinker illustrates that you ought not be lecturing anybody about anything.

  308. Whistler, all you have to do is go look at what cross-hairs look like and what surveyor’s symbols look like. Her site used surveyor’s symbols for their targeting. On the other hand, when the Democrat Leadership Council targeted states prior to 2009, they used actual bullseyes. When Daily Kos targeted Gabrielle Giffords by name in 2008, Daily Kos used an actual bullseye.

    To borrow directly from Perry, “do some research or keep silent” Whistler.

  309. Whistler, the fact that you’re attempting to equate the targeting of Giffords’ Congressional District in the last election with this deranged psychotic putting a gun to her head is despicable, absolutely despicable. Shame on you.

  310. “Whistler, all you have to do is go look at what cross-hairs look like and what surveyor’s symbols look like…”

    And, as I just noted, ignore every word out of Palin’s mouth at the time, and ignore the fact that every single person who looked at the sign before the shooting saw it, talked about it, and regarded it as crosshairs, without any objection from Palin. Oh, also surgically extract your sense of shame.

    It’s an after-the-fact excuse, Hitchcock, nothing more. You, being willing to say anything for the glory of the GOP, latch onto it like a baby on a teat. It’s excessive defensiveness, Hitchcock. It’s pathetic, and the sooner you guys quit playing these bullshit games the better for the country.

  311. Whistler, where’s your condemnation of Daily Kos for using an actual bullseye and targeting Gabrielle Giffords in 2008 with an actual bullseye?

    Whistler, where’s your condemnation of the Democrat Leadership Council for using an actual bullseye and targeting states GWB won?

    Yeah, like I thought.

    Hypocrite.

  312. ropelight: From the man who will say anything for partisan gain. Since I don’t see the slightest evidence you have read or understood anything I”ve said, you can stick your “shame on you” up your ass. Equate? What the holy hell are you talking about? I’m saying the crosshairs were crosshairs up until the shooting, and they’re still crosshairs.

    Really, equate? There’s definitely a lack of shame going on here. Some of you guys are attempting to be reasonable here, and I’ve been careful not to say anything about a definite link between the violent rhetoric coming regularly from the biggest stars on the right and Loughner’s deed. Yet the most bitterly lost hard-right among you just can’t help yourselves. Equate?

    Then again, you’re a proven bullshitter, ropelight, who reveres the worst on the right, including the worst hate-monger among them, GOP party leader Rush Limbaugh. You’ll say anything, and accusing me of “equating” Palin’s crosshairs with Loughner’s murderous deeds is par for the course from you.

    If you want to say there’s no proof all the gun talk from the right, e.g. “Second Amendment solutions…” from the person you hoped would replace Harry Reid, led Loughner to do what he did, I’d agree, we don’t know yet. But when you guys start pretending crosshairs were just surveyor’s marks, or that the Democrats have been just as bad, I’m going to call bullshit on the bullshit. The right has gone apeshit since 2008, and the Secret Service will tell you.

    The point is that Giffords’ shooting means the party is over. The extreme gun talk is revealed for its folly, and those who wish to be taken seriously in the future should eschew it, and voters shouldn’t reward it. It’s a simple point, and you’ve twisted it beyond all recognition, as usual. Who knows what you’ll think this comment said.

  313. Hitchcock: “Actual bullseye…” Still bullshitting. Should I wax about how bullseyes are used on beanbag toys, and don’t necessarily convey guns like crosshairs do? Would you consider that fair? I said that anybody who had gun talk should feel some regret, confessed my own sin, refused to excuse Obama’s one instance, etc. What I won’t abide is you guys pretending that there’s equivalence, or that you weren’t even really talking about guns, etc.

    This is, of course, like arguing with a stupid child. You, like ropelight, aotc, and DNW have no concept of fairness or intellectual honesty. Surveyor scopes, Hitchcock, says it all. Not one damn ounce of shame or regard for reality.

  314. Once again, Whistler proves he lives in an alternate universe. And once again, Whistler proves the leftist truism “That’s DIFFERENT” when his own hypocrisy is pointed out.

    And no, Whistler, Sarah Palin was not in any way telling people to actually shoot Democrats. That’s all in your pea-brain head of yours. You really should see a proctologist for your rectal-cranial inversion.

  315. The point is that Giffords’ shooting means the party is over. The extreme gun talk is revealed for its folly, and those who wish to be taken seriously in the future should eschew it, and voters shouldn’t reward it. It’s a simple point, and you’ve twisted it beyond all recognition, as usual.

    You are forgetting, Henry, that the real victims here are the poor wingnuts, who have the fee-fees hurt because the nasty liberals are trying to draw a link between their leaders insinuating that guns should be used against liberal politicians and, well, a gun being used against a liberal politician.

    I mean, really, the nine year old didn’t suffer, after all. She’s in no pain. Just think about the real victims here – the poor wingnuts you are so unfairly castigating!

  316. And speaking about insinuating that liberals should be shot

    S.C. Company Sells Engraved “You Lie” Component For AR-15 Rifle
    by Corey Hutchins, January 11th 04:07pm

    A South Carolina gun and accessories company is selling semi-automatic rifle components inscribed with “You lie” – a tribute to the infamous words of 2nd District Republican Congressman Joe Wilson when he shouted at President Barack Obama during a congressional speech about national health care reform in the fall of 2009.

    “Palmetto State Armory would like to honor our esteemed congressman Joe Wilson with the release of our new ‘You Lie’ AR-15 lower receiver,” reads a portion of the company’s website.

    The product “is neither endorsed nor affiliated with Joe Wilson or his campaign,” according to a line of text at the bottom of the page. A picture of Wilson holding a rifle and standing in the company’s gun shop appears on the same page. The company offers the components, marked “MULTI to accommodate most builds,” for $99.95 apiece.

    “Only 999 of these will be produced, get yours before they are gone!” the website reads.

  317. Hitchcock: Wow, you’re actually physically incapable of reading things that would up-end your worldview.

    “Whistler proves…” That’s great, but you skipped the part where you actually demonstrated any of that. You’re just flinging shit.

    Then, after I tell you directly, “…anybody who (made) gun talk should feel some regret…” you claim I’m still hypocritical. When confronted with conflicting evidence, you just double down on the accusation. All the while, you are not only refusing to condemn the talk of Palin and most other major rightwing figures, but actively trying to pull a fast one on us. And you continue:

    “Sarah Palin was not in any way telling people to actually shoot Democrats.”

    Nice straw man, but why don’t you argue with me instead of the liberal boogeymen in your head? I’m trying to hold you accountable for your bullshit after-the-fact excuse making about the crosshairs, and you have to keep kicking up dirt to hide the fact of your own deception. But telling one lie to cover up another just gets you in more trouble, John.

    But I think you know you got dunked. In the end, you’re just spit and venom and invective, and logic is just some word to slap on your rambling, a word you don’t actually understand.

  318. Over at Pattericos’s AGAIN Dave Surls says this, because…I tell him things he doesn’t want to believe about the war, ugly things our government does, like drop bombs on innocent human beings, and create birth defects in new born babies with depleted uranium, and of course despite the statisticians conclusions of over a million dead, of course, they won’t believe. But, another statement from him to me…

    #Dave’s post…

    “Dave Surl here on this thread has stated I should be killed…” (him quoting me)

    Yup. I’m in favor of offing ALL the terrorists who have attacked us (and killed thousands of my countrymen), and I’m also in favor of offing anyone who helps the terrorists…especially traitor American propagandists. They’re about as low a lifeform as exists in this universe.

    Of course, traitor Americans should get a fair trial before they’re hung for treason. I figure about 30 seconds of fair trial ought to do it.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 1/11/2011 @ 11:40 pm

    How vile these people can be!!!

  319. I agree with Henry Whistler and Blubonet about the outrageous rhetoric, rhetoric which we should not tolerate, thereby engaging in reasonable calling out and pushing back. This is not a question of depriving anyone of their freedom to speak, it is using ours to point out their extremism. And yes, we do see this extremism on this very blog, as a microcosm of what is going on nationally.

    For example, what do you think of these rhetorical metaphors and epithets?

    She wrote about using “strong weapons” and “big guns” to drive to the basket. She urged teams to “shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win.” She says “bombing through the press” is part of what teams must do to help reach their goals.
    “To the teams that desire making it this far next year: Gear up! In the battle, set your sights on next season’s targets! From the shot across the bow — the first second’s tip-off — your leaders will be in the enemy’s crosshairs, so you must execute strong defensive tactics,” she wrote. “You won’t win only playing defense, so get on offense!”

    Or this?

    “We need a drum roll for those front runners in the election; those illegal teachers, pigs, and politicians of yours are under illegal authority of their constitution. Those dirty pigs think they know the damn year. Thirdly, tell them mother@#^%$#@ to count from 0 to whenever they feel a threat to stop their count…”

    “Those illegal military personal are able to sign into a country that they can’t find with an impossible date! How did you trust your child with them fraud teachers and front runners, listener? Did you now know that the teachers, pigs, and front runners are treasonous!”

    ….

    “You don’t have to accept the [SIC] federalist laws…A terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.”

    or even this?

    “And this is the state of hapless degradation into which the brainless left-wing know-nothing sweet mystery of life kumbaya spouting clownfucks visiting this board, want to drag every last one of us. And if they don’t get it they say, they’re going to start rioting.”

    Until we better acknowledge and understand the direction in which we are going, thus enabling ourselves do something constructive about it, we will continue our moral deterioration, in my view.

  320. I agree with Henry Whistler and Blubonet about the outrageous rhetoric, rhetoric which we should not tolerate, thereby engaging in reasonable calling out and pushing back. This is not a question of depriving anyone of their freedom to speak, it is using ours to point out their extremism. And yes, we do see this extremism on this very blog, as a microcosm of what is going on nationally.

    Then I’m sure you’ll equally agree that those on the Right should not tolerate outrageous leftist rhetoric, thereby engaging in reasonable rhetoric and pushing back. This is not a question of depriving anyone of their freedom to speak, it is using ours to point out their extremism. And yes, we do see this [leftists] extremism on this very blog, as a microcosm of what is going on nationally.

    Of course, you’ve already opined that you do not think leftist rhetoric is as bad as that on the Right. You’re wrong, of course. As usual.

  321. The leadership of the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement are not only failing to condemn the hate speech and violent rhetoric that may have led to this; they are actively trying to make it someone else’s fault. Look, you childish assholes; the fact that “Bobby did it, too!” didn’t absolve you of responsibility when you were a kid, pleading for mercy from your mother, and it certainly doesn’t work now. The Tea Party, with the quiet acquiescence and even the assistance of the Republican Party, “targeted” Gabrielle Giffords, and someone shot her. It may have been coincidence, but the fact that it’s even plausible should make it difficult for teabaggers to sleep at night. I didn’t say it would, but it should.

    C’mon, Nang, this is obviously a bunch of self serving rhetoric by someone who wants to exploit this tragedy for their own political gain. And these people always talk about “Hate speech” but never provide any examples.

    In short, this is nothing but a bunch of partisan hot air from a buffoon who seems to care more about using this to bash his opponents than he does about the victims themselves.

  322. GOP party leader Rush Limbaugh, noted blatant racist btw

    One could note that calling someone a racist based on zero evidence is a form of left wing hate speech. And it’s a tactic they indulge in ALL THE TIME.

  323. All the while, you are not only refusing to condemn the talk of Palin and most other major rightwing figures

    What’s there to condemn? Talking about “Targeting” one’s political opponents happens all the time, and no thinking person believes that this sort of metaphor has anything to do with wishing actual physical violence on people.

    Palin has nothing to apologize for.

  324. Perry says:
    11 January 2011 at 08:31

    “Hube repeats:

    ‘Sorry, but no one should take seriously anything said by someone who doesn’t know what the 27th Amendment says and thinks that Thomas efferson wrote the Constitution.’

    Hube, you first made this point many months ago, to which PiaToR admitted his mistake.”

    Why does Phoenician in a Time of Roman’s admission that he was pretending to knowledge he lacked [just to be provocative apparently], mean that the example, one among many, should be overlooked as an example of his character and trustworthiness?

    Henry Whistler has admitted fabricating text and placing it in quotation marks and then falsely attributing the text to others. He shrugged it off as being part of his style. That style, in both cases, is called a fundamental attitude of dishonesty, Perry.

  325. or even this?

    “And this is the state of hapless degradation into which the brainless left-wing know-nothing sweet mystery of life kumbaya spouting clownfucks visiting this board, want to drag every last one of us. And if they don’t get it they say, they’re going to start rioting.”

    That one seems to read even better with the passage of time, Perry. You do recall back when you were threatening civil insurrection and Snowflake was doing his fractal fantasy mystery dance and claiming it proved … whatever it was he was trying to prove?

  326. DNW: Wow. You forgot that you, DNW, just did the exact same thing the other day? Or that you excused it as satire when your pal ropelight did it? Of course not, you remember quite well.

    I’d say dishonesty is repeating a fake claim over and over again hoping that it will ring true, even after it’s been repeatedly debunked. An accusation of dishonesty from a weasel like yourself who uses repetition instead of reason and runs away from debates he later brags about winning is a badge of honor.

    Oh, and you didn’t tell me how you felt about the attempted extermination of the parasitic liberal organism called Giffords. Surely no loss in your eyes, no?

  327. Eric: “One could note that calling someone a racist based on zero evidence is a form of left wing hate speech.”

    Maybe, if one had, indeed, zero evidence.

    So is that the standard you’d like me to work with, Eric? Zero evidence? So that if I can even provide one piece of evidence, I’m in the clear? Or is that goal post going to get moved back?

    Are you really sure I have zero evidence Rush Limbaugh is a racist? I just want to get your position clear before I respond. Don’t assume I can’t, I just want to make sure you are going to stand your ground on your claim first. I’ve got too much annoyance from wingers who invoke No True Scotsmen fallacies who then run away from threads with questions unanswered and talk later about how awesomely they did…

  328. “Henry Whistler says:

    12 January 2011 at 12:25

    DNW: Wow. You forgot that you, DNW, just did the exact same thing the other day? Or that you excused it as satire when your pal ropelight did it? Of course not, you remember quite well.

    I’d say dishonesty is repeating a fake claim over and over again hoping that it will ring true, even after it’s been repeatedly debunked. An accusation of dishonesty from a weasel like yourself who uses repetition instead of reason and runs away from debates he later brags about winning is a badge of honor.

    Oh, and you didn’t tell me how you felt about the attempted extermination of the parasitic liberal organism called Giffords. Surely no loss in your eyes, no?”

    It hardly matters what you would say dishonesty is Henry, since you have amply demonstrated long ago that you have no idea what honesty is. You seemed to imagine it was a matter of what struck you as stylish at the moment.

    And I’m not sure why you have referred to Giffords as “parasitic” or as a “liberal organism” – are you purporting to directly quote someone in reference to her? Nor, why you asked about how I felt, rather than what I thought of the attempted murder of Giffords; but then who can plumb the chaotic depths of the leftist “mind”, eh Snowflake?

    Look into your soul Henry, and ask yourself if … Oh wait. Yeah … don’t bother.

  329. ABC NEWS:

    “Jared Loughner’s friend says suspect ‘Did not watch TV … disliked the news’
    By Chris Ariens, January 12, 2011

    “This morning on “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield sat down with Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre.

    Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Regarding the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, Osler says his friend didn’t even watch the news.

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

  330. Why does Phoenician in a Time of Roman’s admission that he was pretending to knowledge he lacked [just to be provocative apparently], mean that the example, one among many, should be overlooked as an example of his character and trustworthiness?

    Cite, idiot.

  331. So is that the standard you’d like me to work with, Eric? Zero evidence? So that if I can even provide one piece of evidence, I’m in the clear? Or is that goal post going to get moved back?

    Ask ropelight to explain why he refers to Obama as an “usurper”…

  332. Geez, I listed someone else’s challenge, and it became mine, here?

    Okay, I’ll give it a go. (Just don’t charge me per colon.)

    Example #1: That was a damnable statement by Kajorski. I understand his anger, since I know about Scott’s involvement in the Columbia/HCA scandal. But it was violent talk, and could have resulted in triggering a nutcase. I notice that he lost his election. How’s that for the left repudiating him?

    (All my counter examples come from here. I didn’t travel more than a fifth of the way down the page. http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/03/eliminationism-in-america-appendix.html)

    3 counter examples:

    1. Rush Limbaugh: “I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus — living fossils — so we will never forget what these people stood for.”

    2. Ann Coulter: “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee. … That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”

    3. Melanie Morgan: “I would have no problem with [New York Times editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber.”

    Example #2: This is anger. Hatred, even. But it can’t be construed as a call to violence. It’s this difference I don’t think the Right sees. I don’t blame the guy who shot Giffords and the others. He was a loon, and was probably guaranteed to do something crazy. But he turned on the radio and the TV and found a crusade.

    Example #3: It’s borderline, but I can see this as something that might cause a nut to hurt someone. Repudiation: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032648/greenpeace-goes-postal/

    Can’t find more in a casual search. That’s discouraging. I think one of the main differences between Left and Right is that, since we fall into the trap of only studying the excesses of the other side, we easily ignore those of our own side. It’s the reason I hang out on this blog sometimes. I hate tunnel vision. Still, I never heard of any of these examples.

    Oh, well, here’s three counter-examples:

    1. Melanie Morgan: “A great deal of good could be done by arresting Bill Keller having him lined up against the wall and shot.”

    2. Lee Rogers: “[T]he day will come when unpleasant things are going to happen to a bunch of stupid liberals and it’s going to be very amusing to watch.”

    3. “The Political Insight”: Let’s start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen. Do you have an idea where they live?

    Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous — grab for the golden ring.

    Example #4: Yes, we’ve got our idiots, too. The hard part about searching for liberals disowning this guy is that the quote is on about a million conservatives blogs, so as I scroll through the Google results, I have to read the partial URL’s and decide if they’re liberal or conservative…

    Instead, I’ll give three counter examples:

    1. RedState contributor “Thomas Crown”: I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.

    2. Ann Coulter:

    LINDA VESTER (host): You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all?

    COULTER: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days.

    3. Rabbi Daniel Lapin:

    I am absolutely convinced that God is far from finished with the story of the United States of America. … First of all, [there's] the matter of the little battle that must be fought, just as it was in the 19th century.” There were, and are, “two incompatible moral visions for this country. We had to settle it then. We’re going to have to settle it now. I hope not with blood, not with guns, but we’re going to have to settle it nonetheless. The good news is that I think our side is finally ready to settle it. Roll up its sleeves, take off its jacket, and get a little bloody. Spill a little blood. We’ll settle it. And we’ll win. And then there’s no holding us back.

    Example #5: Yup. Irresponsible. I understand it, but I wouldn’t say it in the media.

    Counters:

    1. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev.:

    While praising the efforts of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gibbons accused liberals, movie stars and song makers of “trying to divide this country.”

    “I say we tell those liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and their music and whine somewhere else,” he told the crowd, according to the Elko Daily Free Press.

    He then said it was “too damn bad we didn’t buy them a ticket” to become human shields in Iraq.

    2. Ann Coulter: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

    3. Ann Coulter: “We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too.”

    Example #6: Heh. Good one. Notice, it’s only a call to violence if you’re Dick Cheney.

    Counters, all from Coulter:

    1. Ann Coulter: “Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now.”

    2. “My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism.”

    3. “In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he [Clinton] ‘did it,’ even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate.”

    (Assassinate? For consensual adult sex? This woman is insane, yet she’s not a fringe character, but the mainstream.)

  333. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    12 January 2011 at 13:54

    Why does Phoenician in a Time of Roman’s admission that he was pretending to knowledge he lacked [just to be provocative apparently], mean that the example, one among many, should be overlooked as an example of his character and trustworthiness?

    Cite, idiot.

    The reference is contained in the part of my exchange with Perry which you declined to copy, idiot.

    You stupidly pretended to have knowledge you did not in fact possess in order to dispute with someone.

    You were caught out in your ignorant pretense by Hube.

    Perry says you admitted the pretense, which he spins as a “mistake”.

    There’s another cite. Idiot.

  334. “Phoenician in a time of Romans says:
    1

    2 January 2011 at 13:54

    Why does Phoenician in a Time of Roman’s admission that he was pretending to knowledge he lacked [just to be provocative apparently], mean that the example, one among many, should be overlooked as an example of his character and trustworthiness?

    Cite, idiot.”

    What kind of idiot cuts the contextually provided cite (reference) out, and then demands it?

  335. Naggy, in your first Example, you say the Left repudiated Kanjorski, but then offer no evidence for that assertion. That he lost the election is proof only that his opponent prevailed, not that members of his own party rejected him.

    If you have any actual evidence, not convenient self-serving assumptions, that Democrats objected to his hateful attack on Scott, I’d like to see it.

  336. DNW: This is hilarious. You must know you’re lying at this point, and you know I know you’re lying, but you keep calling me dishonest. Much like Hitchcock, when faced with blatantly contradictory evidence that not only were you full of shit and applying a double standard at the time, you yourself committed the very crime you accuse me of just days ago, you simply repeat your accusation. No rebuttal, no defense, just repetition.

    The facts are the facts. I employed a stylistic convention that ropelight used but forgot about, so he tried to turn it on me. You picked up the lead and were left sputtering excuses and dropped the issue when it was pointed out you were employing a double standard. Just a few days ago, you committed the same act of “dishonesty,” and your response to being called on it is to wait a couple days, and then freshly intone as if the past didn’t really exist that I’ve admitted to fabricating quotes.

    Facts vs. bullshit. I’ve laid out plain and bare why you’re a liar, DNW. Your response is to just keep repeating that no, I’m the liar. I provide logical evidence why I’m right, you employ repetition.

    Have you ever considered just living or dying by how solid an argument you can make? What is wrong with you that you are forced to keep up the charade after your emperor’s robes are long shed? What, are you autistic or riddled with severe OCD? Or are you just a pathologically dishonest person who must project upon others?

    BTW, you still aren’t answering the question. Tell me your thoughts on why you consider evasion a useful debate tactic, and why your positions are worth holding if you can’t defend them.

  337. What kind of idiot cuts the contextually provided cite (reference) out, and then demands it?

    The simple fact is, you fool, that I said I was wrong – as anybody can be wrong. Your comment that I “was pretending to knowledge [I] lacked” demonstrates what Henry says about you – you’re fundamentally a lying sack of shit. Pathologically dishonest.

    So why don’t you answer Henry’s questions, you coward – tell him your thoughts on why you consider evasion a useful debate tactic, and why your positions are worth holding if you can’t defend them.

  338. I think DNW’s behavior is indicative of his general regard for liberals as parasitic organisms sapping the lifeblood of the country. He doesn’t have much of a case, but he thinks he’s one of the good people, and I’m a dirty liberal, so he doesn’t really have to respond to questions or rebuttals anymore than he feels he can tolerate my insidious presence. Tribalism trumps logic in DNW’s world, which is why he freely condemns me for violating a standard people like ropelight and he can freely violate. It’s Okay If You’re A Republican!

  339. Henry says:

    Tribalism trumps logic in DNW’s world, which is why he freely condemns me for violating a standard people like ropelight and he can freely violate.

    Precisely!

  340. I think DNW’s behavior is indicative of his general regard for liberals as parasitic organisms sapping the lifeblood of the country. He doesn’t have much of a case, but he thinks he’s one of the good people, and I’m a dirty liberal, so he doesn’t really have to respond to questions or rebuttals anymore than he feels he can tolerate my insidious presence.

    You’re mistaking “can’t” for “doesn’t have to”, I think.

    Tribalism trumps logic in DNW’s world, which is why he freely condemns me for violating a standard people like ropelight and he can freely violate. It’s Okay If You’re A Republican!

    Face it – on this blog, DNW and ropelight would be the two people most likely to enjoy gleefully shoving the liberals into the cattlecars to be trundled off to their fates in some future teabagger “utopia”. Possibly followed by Eric, who would believe dumbly that they were being sent on holiday somewhere.

    PB would be preaching how Christianity meant liberals should stop whining about the situation, and Dana would be claiming that they weren’t cattlecars since they had people in them, and therefore the compaints were foundless.

  341. Geez, I listed someone else’s challenge, and it became mine, here?

    Good attempt, Nang, but as usual you forgot one thing: The fact that you said “most liberals” denounced the instances noted. You showed nothing of the sort. Moreover, your excuses for some of the instances shown are nothing short of ridiculous. Period.

    So much for Nang “challenges.” When met, hedge, dodge, make excuses and forget what part of the original challenge was! Remember:

    Here’s a challenge for all of you righties out there. I want you to comb the archives and come up with any hate speech or violent rhetoric from a prominent liberal that wasn’t condemned by most liberals, and I’ll reply with at least three from the right.

    Oops.

  342. Hube: “So much for Nang “challenges.””

    Review the post where that came from. It was inside the block quotes. You can find it in the link provided. It wasn’t my challenge.

    And I freely admit it’s very hard to find liberals condemning something that thousands of conservatives are condemning. Impossible, with the kind of effort I bothered to put into the search. There are too many hits, and I don’t know how to filter the search by political leaning.

    But the effort wasn’t necessary… the challenge was, find a quote that wasn’t condemned, or get three from the right. I provided those, and a link to hundreds more.

  343. ms giffords opened her eyes! that is awesome.

    i know how her husband feels. i really do. i am very happy for them.

  344. Giffords could open her eyes 3 days ago. The Tucson Sentinel reported it on January 9th. In an article by B. Poole, Medical Center Trauma Chief, Pete Rhee, was quoted as follows:

    “…Doctors frequently awaken her to check for responsiveness, and she could open her eyes and respond to simple commands Sunday – an encouraging sign…”

  345. But the effort wasn’t necessary… the challenge was, find a quote that wasn’t condemned, or get three from the right. I provided those, and a link to hundreds more.

    Of course, move the goal posts again and again. You seriously think I or anyone else couldn’t go tit-for-tat with you with this nonsense?

    Maybe you ought to listen to our Chief Exec…

  346. Whistler, that echo you hear is the ring of truth reverberating around inside your thick noggin. You’re dishonest, DNW isn’t, the facts are in the record, and they can not be honestly disputed. You’re attempting to deny the truth and evade responsibility.

    Imagine my shock-face!

  347. the venue chosen for the memorial service last night, i suspect, was to use the youth, in academia in our country as a springboard to showcase hope and forward thinking after the tragedy.

    which, if in a ideal world, would have been good.

    in a postmodern world, young people seem to have displaced priorities when it comes to life and death and politics. many of the speakers were befuddled, including obama, with the displaced reactions and actions of the youth crowd. the president, the other speakers did an appropriate job of addressing the dead and wounded and their families with respect and dignity. the youth in the audience, while i do understand they are indeed young, and the young always think in terms if invincibility, have nevertheless lost any shred of decency and humanity that one expects human life to be treated with.

    welcome to postmodern america, folks. the leaders of tomorrow. these ARE the [individuals] that acadama is churning out that will be taking care of all of you in nursing homes, care facilities and deicing your fate. the cold bloodless lot that believe in nothing. not even themselves. only their needs, as they find them.

    if you did not read it. look up-thread. read the poem creed and chance i cant believe we let ourselves get this empty.

    ..i need to get some work done today…

  348. Hube, can you read? Quote where it’s my challenge. Explain what you think it said. Quote where it said what you think it said. Prove I moved a goal post.

  349. “in a postmodern world, young people seem to have displaced priorities when it comes to life and death and politics. (aotc)”

    I noticed that too, where they turned the memorial service into more of a rally.

    But this too: The older generations typically look on the emerging generation as wild, unkempt, and rude. So I’m not too surprised at how we oldsters responded to this display.

  350. Just a little addendum to my 10:12: It appears the local (AZ) paper in question was erroneous in its report. Giffords did indeed “open her eyes” for the first time close to Obama’s speech.

    For the record.

  351. Hube, can you read? Quote where it’s my challenge. Explain what you think it said. Quote where it said what you think it said. Prove I moved a goal post.

    *Sigh* What’s the use, Nang? Really — enlighten us. To what end? I’ve asked you zillions of questions and/or refuted your comments at this site so often … and then you’re never seen again in the thread. And all of a sudden now you wanna quibble?

    Thanks for the laugh.

  352. What the hell happened last night, did Obama chastise the Blood Libelers, or did he turn the memorial into a thinly disguised political Pep Rally? Or, both?

    Who’s really responsible for the inappropriate climate of celebration? Did the loony Left’s Messiah turn the memorial into an old time tent revival meeting, complete with free T-shirts and a laying on of hands?

    Did the devil make him do it, or was it Sarah Palin, or George W Bush? Maybe it was the pernicious influence of the TEA Party, or could Talk Radio have undermined the oh, so, precious civility with which the Left has suddenly become preoccupied?

    How about all the name calling and finger-pointing the Left has been feverishly flogging since before the blood coagulated? Is all that down the memory hole now, and is the Left ready to attack again only with focus on the gun control issue now. Rush predicted it.

  353. Ropelight: Your assertions are not evidence. Repeating them does not make them more correct. Repetition does have an effect on people over time though, so your use of it indicates what a cynical manipulator you are.

    I’ve stated my case. You’ve yet to truly respond, because you can’t. So you employ other methods.

    And who cares what dittoheads like you say about Tucson and how the people involved in the tragedy acted? WHAT RUSH SAID!

  354. Here’s an excerpt from Jennifer Rubin’s opinion column, Right Turn, in the WaPo 1/13/11. Her topic is Obama’s approach in last night’s memorial.

    “…The reason I believe that Obama entirely avoided politics, indeed rebuked the Krugman-Daily Kos narrative, is because he saw the pushing and shoving, read the polls, figured which way the wind was blowing, and steered clear of associating himself with the tone-deaf left. Conversely, because the left couldn’t restrain themselves, they pounced immediately and left a trail of inanity on twitter and websites.

    The final lesson for the left is this: for the sake of a second term, the president is willing to throw liberals under the bus. He’s going to undo their economic mantra (by supporting the Bush tax cuts). He is going to undermine their approach to their war on terror (with drones, a long-term commitment to Afghanistan). And he is even going to make the liberal icons — Krugman, the New York Times editorial board, Keith Olbermann and the rest — look like fools. The “paper of record” has revealed, for any doubters, that the truth is the first casualty of its op-ed page…”

  355. Here’s a video clip showing how the teabaggers conduct politics when their opponent is Jewish.

    And here’s another example of the teabaggers in action:

    A California man accused of threatening to kill Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott has been arrested and charged in federal court.

    Charles Turner Habermann — a 32-year-old Palm Springs, Calif., resident with a $3 million trust fund — was arrested Wednesday morning on allegations that he made threatening phone calls to the office of the Seattle Democrat late last year.

    Federal authorities contend Habermann admitted to making the calls because he was angry about taxes, but said he wouldn’t risk losing his trust fund by attacking McDermott.

    Federal prosecutors in Seattle described statements left by Habermann in two Dec. 9 phone calls as an “expletive-laden” effort to influence McDermott’s vote on tax policy. According to charging documents, Habermann to have threatened to kill McDermott’s friends and family, then, in the second call, threatened to put McDermott “in the trash.”
    [...]
    Habermann also disparaged Democrats for their views on tax cuts and unemployment insurance, according to the statement. Habermann is alleged to have threatened to kill McDermott in an effort to interfere with his vote on the tax cut proposal in December 2010.

  356. “Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    12 January 2011 at 16:00

    ‘What kind of idiot cuts the contextually provided cite (reference) out, and then demands it?’

    … simple fact is, you fool, that I said I was wrong – as anybody can be wrong. … “

    Try that line out on your little cat buddy next time you have another of your conversations with it. You say it’s pretty stupid. Maybe it’s buying.

    Simple fact “librarian”, is that you asked for the cite when the reference was already staring right at you – prior to your deleting it.

    And no, Phoenician in a Time of Romans, you are not wrong in the way others are wrong. That would elevate you from an absurdity to a fellow. No, you are regularly and preposterously wrong; redoundingly destructive; a comically posturing jackanapes who continually misfires his illiterate volleys of pretentious ignorance square back into his own pug face.

    You, Phoenician in a Time of Romans, as a self-appointed authority on the meaning of our Constitutionally protected legal privilege of habeas corpus, who consistently misspelled the term for a year while supposedly expounding on its importance; you, the idiot librarian who swallowed whole a patent left-wing fabrication regarding George Washington, and then proceeded to lecture this board based on that obvious fraud; you, a floundering clown who referred to a famous philosopher by the name of an English actor, and then called this same famous liberal/utilitarian, a conservative.

    The list goes on and on and on, “ad nauseum” (sic), as you have repeatedly written while reaching for an effect obviously beyond your educational grasp.

    It’s only your emotional autism, Phoenician, coupled to an obviously desperate craving to validate your meaningless existence through provoking pointless quarrels with more significant Americans (ostensibly for the sake of your cause du jour) that keeps you from exhibiting the same kind of morally appropriate sense of shame over your unceasing record of malevolent stupidities, that a psychologically balanced person would evince.

    Your depression must be one hell of a thing for you to live with. If you weren’t such a nihilist dirt-bag, I might even feel sorry for you.

  357. ropelight: “…he saw the pushing and shoving, read the polls, figured which way the wind was blowing, and steered clear of associating himself with the tone-deaf left.”

    It was a memorial service. Not a place to grind an axe.

    The pep rally feel bothered me, too, but I don’t think you can speak to 13,000 people, tell them things they approve of, and expect them to be quiet about it.

  358. Here’s an excerpt from examiner.com 1/13/11 from Jim Kouri.

    “Obama’s Arizona memorial speech fails to mention his complicity”

    (Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” Sarah Palin said. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.)

    “When former Alaska Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin uttered the above words on Wednesday, the news media and the left — often difficult to differentiate from one another — again pounced on her with snippy commentary and accusations that her past pronouncements contributed to the otherwise senseless slaughter in Arizona last Saturday.

    “If anything positive can be attributed to the mass shootings by a crazed gunman named Jared Loughner it is the fact that many members of the news media removed their masks and ceased pretending to be unbiased arbiters of truth,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

    “In my 30 years in politics, I have never seen such lock-stepping hatred for a politician by folks in the media and so-called political activists,” Baker said.”

  359. Perry says:
    13 January 2011 at 13:32

    “in a postmodern world, young people seem to have displaced priorities when it comes to life and death and politics. (aotc)”

    I noticed that too, where they turned the memorial service into more of a rally.

    But this too: The older generations typically look on the emerging generation as wild, unkempt, and rude. So I’m not too surprised at how we oldsters responded to this display.”

    “The older generations typically look on the emerging generation as wild, unkempt, and rude. So I’m not too surprised at how we oldsters responded to this display.”

    Don’t you think that’s a specious bit of generalization? There’s more to it than a generational difference when a certain class of people cannot differentiate between proper obsequies and a pep rally. There’s the psychological difference between the class of people who are genuinely bereaved and reflective and the class of people exemplified by the opportunist Greensboro Marxist “wife”.

    Of course, given the leftists’ view of what makes up a person, it all just boils down to social drama and ultimately subjective narrative anyway. Why not then, in their view, leverage the occasion to get something they feel will make their transient existence more emotionally satisfying.

  360. Whistler writes:

    “I employed a stylistic convention …”

    A “sylistic convention” wherein you fabricated text and directly attributed it to me while placing it in quotation marks.

    I don’t know why you think you are entitled to shelter behind ropelight. Did ropelight fabricate a text and like you attribute it to me?

    You picked up the lead and were left sputtering excuses and dropped the issue when it was pointed out you were employing a double standard …

    So sorry. I noticed that you fraudulently attributed to me, material which I had not written; material which you had presented between quotation marks to indicate that I did. You have already admitted you did so and that you didn’t care who knew it.

    You have (1) an obvious difficulty in grasping what argument really is about, and when the actual argument is over as a result of your having conceded the point; while (2) are simultaneously suffering from the delusion that your Nerdish pigeon-breast-beating noises and empty displays of vituperation and vaunt should somehow be taken seriously, and responded to.

    You crave a diet of that silly shit, look back to your own website.

  361. Try that line out on your little cat buddy next time you have another of your conversations with it.

    Well, if you think it’s smarter than you, who am I to disagree?

  362. DNW: What parts you are idiot vs. asshole I really don’t care. Here you go proving how completely bankrupt you are:

    “A “sylistic convention” wherein you fabricated text and directly attributed it to me while placing it in quotation marks.”

    Which you and your adoring friend ropelight also use. Which I just pointed out. But you employ repetition like a monkey instead of a man.

    You’ve obviously made a conscious decision to write out of your perception facts stated by me that completely puncture and deflate everything you’re saying. At this point, we both know you’re lying, but your excuse is that I utilize…

    “…Nerdish pigeon-breast-beating noises and empty displays of vituperation and vaunt…”

    Project much? Well, DNW,you’re a f***ing Nazi/KKK sympathizer who revels in the splattered brains of your political enemies, American citizens no less.

    I really don’t know how you can demonstrate to any and all eyes here any better what a scumbag you are. You aren’t better than me, DNW, you aren’t smarter, you aren’t more insightful, you aren’t more logical, you aren’t more honest…you’re less of each, dramatically so. I feel proud to be vilified by such a scumbag and poseur, and your Nazi nature, long hinted at, has finally been revealed.

    Congratulations, CSPT crew, on your choice of friend and hero in the complete fraud and genocidal lunatic, DNW. All of you are better people than him, but the association shall be a taint to those who champion and cheer on this Stormfront refugee. Let’s hope we don’t read about him in the news anytime soon helping to eradicate a few parasitic liberal organisms from the country.

  363. wow. its as if pho wants a comforting big mac and whistler wants to punch dnw in the face if he could, instead both employ a mixture of colorful strong language or brags of intellect to do the job. under it all i bet they both just love him like their own dad. almost just like that.

    ah yes, and too…the leftists are getting less civil than ever now. even after they were admonished to be more civil. or did they think that did not apply to them?

    naturally, not them.

    cranky souls. i kinda do feel bad for them.

  364. Hey, sorry guys, but Nazi/KKK sympathizers who revel in the shattered skulls of blacks protesting tick me off.

    Oh, and the constant lying.

    Sorry you’re cool with those things.

  365. Oh, and thanks for implying a threat of violence on my part where none existed. Meanwhile the guy fantasizing about murder victims doesn’t concern you. Got it.

  366. DNW:
    You crave a diet of that silly shit, look back to your own website.

    But you have to remember whistler always wins whether he does or not.

  367. huh,

    somebody doesn’t like the inference that somebody wants to hurt somebody due to the strong opposition language used against a political opponent.

    who would of thought….

    its just not civil is it?

    now that big mac crack. that is another matter

  368. AOTC: like I said, the guy actually celebrating murder doesn’t bother you. But I’m angry about that, so it’s all the same, right?

    Hey, shouldn’t you remember to moralize about punctuation?

  369. Yorkshire: No, it’s reversed, you see. I always lose, even when what I say isn’t rebutted and what you say isn’t defended.

    Any of you gonna point out where I’m wrong, or are you going to just keep concern-trolling about my tone while giving the Nazi/Klan sympathizer the pass?

  370. whistler…

    what the hell is the matter with you?

    you are acting like nut . really.

    knock it off.

    you are nice kid whistler but we arent going to put up with another psychopath.

    we are not here to stroke your ego. quite trolling for attention.

  371. actually. i should speak for myself.

    personally. i am not here to stroke your ego. and i think it is pathetic of you to keep begging for people to “prove you wrong” or right or whatever.

    you are just getting irritating,

    * my apologies to dana. it is your blog. sorry about the language assuming we wont put up with stuff. that was a bit arrogant. no excuses for that.

  372. Oh, and thanks for implying a threat of violence on my part where none existed. Meanwhile the guy fantasizing about murder victims doesn’t concern you. Got it.

    Remember, Henry, it’s almost always all about projection with wingnuts.

  373. * my apologies to dana. it is your blog. sorry about the language assuming we wont put up with stuff. that was a bit arrogant. no excuses for that.

    That right there proves you’re better than the garden-variety leftists who spew on this blog. They very often use argumentum ad populum fallacies in their candy-arse debate attempts, thinking those selfsame fallacies are point-scorers and not realizing they’re actually what you would call “own goal” material.

    But you caught yourself employing it and retracted it.

    (Note: “We won’t put up with” =! “we’re not buying”. If you disingenuous leftists wish an explanation, please do ask me your question.)

  374. So we’re back to you saying whatever you like, and if I respond I’m crazy. I guess I should go so you guys can run around bragging about how you chased me off.

    Look, I believe debate is a back-and-forth where you put up your argument, the other person rebuts, you counter, they respond, and it goes on until some conclusions are reached.

    My conclusion has been solidly established that when you guys don’t have a good response, you resort to schoolyard bullshitting. Yes, I keep trying to push you back on topic, but you don’t want to be on topic. So it’s repetition of ad hominem (as opposed to ad hominem sprinkled throughout a solid argument).

    If anybody has anything actually factual or relevant to add, let me know. If you make a stupid crack, I will feel free to respond and if you don’t like it, maybe don’t make stupid cracks. I’m psycho? No, but you’re empty-headed.

    In the meantime, it stands that DNW is a dishonest Nazi/Klan sympathizer who is the only person here who has actually reveled in violence towards his political opponents. Hearing only bullshit in response, my moral certainty on the issue has been cemented. Thank you!

  375. Remember, Henry, it’s almost always all about projection with wingnuts.

    Remember, NZT, you’re almost always lying. The times you’re not lying is when you’re asleep so soundly that you can’t even dream your lies.

  376. Remember, Henry, it’s almost always all about projection with wingnuts.

    Remember, NZT, you’re almost always lying.

    Q.E.D.

    (This is too easy)

  377. yes john.

    whistler accosted us with his narrative. he was goading “us”, and i got sloppy and responded in kind.

    Henry Whistler says:
    13 January 2011 at 17:55

    Congratulations, CSPT crew, on your choice of friend and hero in the complete fraud and genocidal lunatic, DNW. All of you are better people than him, but the association shall be a taint to those who champion and cheer on this Stormfront refugee. Let’s hope we don’t read about him in the news anytime soon helping to eradicate a few parasitic liberal organisms from the country.

    time for another video for my lefty opponents: i don’t care what you do, i wouldn’t want to be like you :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak8suW-JBzE

    goodnight all.

  378. In case anyone sane was wondering what the hell this “Cloward-Pliven” crap was, it’s the latest conspiracy theory spread by Glenn Beck which these idiots are eating up.

    See here.

    As proof, Beck & Co. point to what they see as a shadowy web of associations: Cloward and Piven worked in alliance with welfare rights organizer George Wiley, who mentored Wade Rathke, who went on to found ACORN, which sometimes coordinated registration drives with Project Vote (whose board of directors Piven just recently joined), a previous incarnation of which employed Obama to run a Chicago chapter in the early ’90s. They also repeatedly cite Emanuel’s statement, made in November 2008 after the passage of TARP but before the stimulus, that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” From The Nation’s pages to the White House’s brains and muscles–it took only forty-four years!

    All of this, of course, is a reactionary paranoid fantasy. Rahm Emanuel is no more Frances Fox Piven’s stooge than Obama is a Muslim. But the looniness of it has not stopped the Cloward-Piven conspiracy theory from spreading across tea party networks. And the left’s gut reaction upon hearing of it–to laugh it off as a Scooby-Doo comic mystery–does nothing to blunt its appeal or limit its impact. In order to respond, alas, we have to understand, and that means going through the looking glass.

    Horowitz first wrote of the Cloward-Piven strategy on his website Discoverthenetworks.org, which claims to be “a guide to the left.” His description is a crude and false account of what Cloward and Piven argued. For example, the words “capital” and “capitalism” never appear in their article. The piece is about precipitating a crisis in the welfare system by legally enrolling masses of eligible recipients, which the welfare bureaucracy could not handle, thus creating a demand for more radical reforms, like a guaranteed minimum income–a proposal that Nixon, of all people, floated in 1969 and that, in fact, Democratic-majority Congresses voted down through 1972 [see Peter Edelman and Barbara Ehrenreich, page 15]. Moreover, as Piven recently explained to me, although the article was written as a strategic thought experiment, in many ways it described and reacted to changes already sweeping the nation, chief among them the civil rights and welfare rights movements, which created newly politicized constituencies to which the Democratic Party had to respond. “The mainstream,” Piven says, “was responsive to the idea that we could end poverty because of these movements.” In short, the stresses placed on the welfare system were caused by a confluence of factors, of which an article published in The Nation, it is safe to say, was but one, and most likely a minor one at that.

    Nevertheless–history and facts be damned–it is Horowitz’s caricature of Cloward-Piven that is now the Rosetta stone of American politics for the tea party’s self-styled intellectuals. Glenn Beck has brought up Cloward and Piven on at least twenty-eight episodes of his show over the past year. Beck is sometimes aided by a blackboard on which he has diagramed something called “The Tree of Revolution,” which links Che Guevara, SEIU and ACORN’s Wade Rathke to Saul Alinsky, the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope, Bill Ayers and, perhaps most improbably, to White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. In the center of the tree’s arching trunk, above SDS and Woodrow Wilson (!?) but below Barack Obama, who adorns the tree’s crown, Beck has scrawled “Cloward & Piven.”

    Remember – this is the quality of “thought” that passes for wisdom on the wingnut Right.

  379. *sigh*

    Pho, facts don’t work on AOTC. She’s got pom poms, man. She’s above it all. You keep trying to use words and then combine them into sentences and then you even make paragraphs, and you submit them to be tested as true or false, but she’s got one word for all your efforts: LOLZ!

    It’s been kind of dramatic looking back through this thread and watching her pipe off continuously to derail anybody sweating her tribal buddies. It’s on the intellectual level of Crips vs. Bloods. The only worthy response to AOTC is to return the mockery.

  380. “Mock the devil and he will flee from thee. -BONO

    he was likely referring to the quote from the forward in the cs lewis book, srewtape letters: “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn.”
    — Martin Luther

    lol, or LOL, whichever you prefer gentlemen.

  381. It’s on the intellectual level of Crips vs. Bloods. The only worthy response to AOTC is to return the mockery.

    Henry, it’s on the level of Crips vs Bloods, with AOTC being Dora the Explorer on the side lisping “Go Cwips! Go Cwips!”

  382. Dana, they say a picture is worth 1000 words, that cartoon proves the point. It shows the bitter, cynical, unbalanced, and delusional Left muttering and foaming at the mouth, angry at being rejected at the polls and out for revenge, head down desperate for a scapegoat and willing to manufacture one in the image of their own discontented projections.

    All the while observers note the obvious insanity.

  383. Dana, they say a picture is worth 1000 words, that cartoon proves the point

    That ropelight can’t tell the difference between a cartoon and a picture, constantly mistaking caricatured fiction for actual reality?

  384. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:
    18 January 2011 at 14:08 (Edit)
    Dana, they say a picture is worth 1000 words, that cartoon proves the point

    That ropelight can’t tell the difference between a cartoon and a picture, constantly mistaking caricatured fiction for actual reality?

    From Webster’s Best Selling Book, The Dictionary
    1pic·ture noun \?pik-ch?r\
    Definition of PICTURE

    1: a design or representation made by various means (as painting, drawing, or photography)

    2a : a description so vivid or graphic as to suggest a mental image or give an accurate idea of something b : a mental image

    3: image, copy

    4a : a transitory visible image or reproduction b : motion picture c plural : movies

    5: tableau 2

    6: situation
    See picture defined for English-language learners »

    The above picture sure looks like drawing as defined above.

  385. I see. So you don’t see a distinction between a target symbol in a logo centred on the Democrats themselves, and a map using gunsights to target opponents?

    This is pretty much the same problem wingnuts have with being unable to appreciate irony or good humour. It’s like they’re unable to hold a detached view of communications in their head, and insist that everything has to be equated with its face value.

  386. Yeah — it’s pretty much like the distinction between roughing up murderous terrorists to save countless lives vs. murdering innocent babies for convenience. It’s like moonbats are unable to hold a rational view of morality in their head …

  387. First of all, Hube, you should have said “alleged” murderous terrorists, which is a part of the problem that you do not acknowledge. Moreover, waterboarding is hardly described accurately as being “roughed up”. We ourselves called it torture when the Japanese waterboarded Americans. Furthermore, you have no qualms with the death penalty. Finally, a fetus is hardly a baby, and the fetus belongs to the pregnant women, yet you feel that you can tell her what to do. You are hardly one to tell the rest of us anything much about morality, or even consistency as you pick and choose, while setting yourself up as some sort of an absolutist authoritarian.

  388. Finally, a fetus is hardly a baby, and the fetus belongs to the pregnant women, yet you feel that you can tell her what to do.

    Not quite – a fetus isn’t a baby, and the woman’s body belongs to the pregnant woman. Hube’s problem is that he’s constructing two strawmen when he talks about liberals “supporting murdering innocent babies”.

    i, They’re not babies.
    ii, Liberals do not support abortion; they support the right of the woman involved to choose abortion.

    This is unlike torture. America tortures prisoners to death, and Hube is a defender of that practice.

  389. Another incident:

    FBI: Bomb Planted Along MLK Day Parade Route In Spokane

    An incendiary device found along the route of a Martin Luther King Day parade in Spokane, Wash., was “likely capable of inflicting multiple casualties,” the FBI said today.

    A city employee found a backpack Monday morning, just before the parade was to start, in a parking lot that was both on the parade route and across the street from a performing arts center that hosted a pre-parade rally.

    More than 1,000 people attended the parade, according to the Spokesman-Review.

    Police responded, followed by the FBI. Several blocks around the parking lot were shut down, and the parade was re-routed. The area was shut down all day, as agents first dismantled the device, using a robot, and then called in hazmat teams.

    The FBI said today that the device posed a credible threat.

    We will now wait for the wingnuts to tell us that this was obviously the work of leftists, upset at people celebrating MLK Day.

Comments are closed.