False Equivalencies: Right vs. Left

Crazy vs. Not As Crazy

Y’all know where I stand on the Tucson shooting.  Those who have used inflammatory rhetoric bear responsibility.

The thing is, they know they bear responsibility.  That’s why they are running full-bore in damage control mode, instead of doing what leaders and human beings do, which is to examine their actions, to think about whether they could have done something differently, and to contemplate what they can do in the future so that they do not contribute to the atmosphere of hatred that threatens to suffocate us all.  To take such self-reflective action, however, would not inure to their benefit.  The O’Palinbeckbaughs need us to be fearful because it’s the best way for them to continue their money, power and political grabs. They offer their condolences and flap their gums about peace and justice, but they are full of crap.  They know it.  I know it.  You know it.  Full stop.

I’m too fed up to rant about it any further, so I’m going to re-post in full (I rarely do it, but it’s appropriate here) Paul Waldman’s post from American Prospect:

On Debating Our Debate.

As we debate what kind of rhetoric is and isn’t objectionable, it would help if we could make some specific distinctions and keep some important things in mind. To that end:

Every gun metaphor is not created equal. Military metaphors infuse our talk about politics; the only thing that comes close is sports. The word “campaign” only relatively recently began to be used to refer to politics; its original use referred to military endeavors. But there is a difference between using metaphors that invoke violence (“We’re going to fight this battle to the end!”) and using rhetoric that invokes violence specifically directed at your opponents (like this), or even speaks literally of people arming to take on your opponents or the government (like Sharron Angle’s infamous discussion of “Second Amendment remedies” to not getting the result you want at the ballot box). One is perfectly ordinary; the other ought to be condemned.

The fact that someone criticizes your rhetoric doesn’t mean they’re “blaming” you for the Arizona shooting. Right now, Sarah Palin’s defenders are angrily denouncing people for “blaming” her for the shooting, because people have pointed to her now famous crosshair map of candidates she was targeting for defeat in 2010, including Gabrielle Giffords. But no one is saying this guy committed his massacre because he looked at this map. What people are saying is that this kind of thing goes too far. Certain things contribute to an atmosphere in which violence becomes more likely; criticizing those things doesn’t mean you’ve said that in the absence of one particular statement or Web posting this event wouldn’t have occurred.

If you think your rhetoric is above reproach, you have an obligation to defend it on its merits. Naturally, many on the right are going to attempt to turn the criticism of them around on the left: See how they’re playing politics! But if you think it’s perfectly fine for you to say what you’ve been saying, explain why. Attacking the motives of those criticizing you doesn’t qualify.

Asking you to tone it down is not censorship. Over at Slate, Jack Shafer defends inflammatory political speech by saying, in part, that “any call to cool ‘inflammatory’ speech is a call to police all speech.” As someone who has spent many years tangling with conservatives over their rhetoric, I’ve heard this argument a million times. When you criticize some talk-show host for something he said, he inevitably responds, “You can’t censor me!” The First Amendment guarantees your freedom to say whatever idiotic thing you want, but it doesn’t keep me from calling you out for it. No one is talking about throwing anyone in jail for extreme rhetoric, but we are talking about whether people should be condemned for certain kinds of rhetoric.

The rhetoric of violence is not the only kind of rhetoric that encourages violence. The apocalyptic rhetoric we’ve seen from some on the right, most notably Glenn Beck, should be part of this discussion too. When Beck portrays Barack Obama as the head of a socialist/communist/Nazi conspiracy whose goal is the literal destruction of America, he is implicitly encouraging violence. If that really were the nature of the administration, and our liberty really were on the verge of being snuffed out, violence would be justified.

If you’re going to say “Liberals do it too” then you ought to provide some evidence. No one disputes that there has been a tide of extreme and violent rhetoric from some quarters of the right in the last couple of years. But any journalist who characterizes this as a bipartisan problem ought to be able to show examples, from people equal in prominence to those on the right (i.e. members of Congress, incredibly popular radio hosts, etc.) who have said equally violent and incendiary things. “Harry Reid once called George W. Bush a liar” doesn’t qualify, nor does a nasty comment some anonymous person once left on a blog.1

I challenge any one of you you nitwits in the comment section*** to come up with a list of liberal offenses scarier than this list of right-wing offenses (from Coalition to Stop Gun Violence), which is a mere two years’ worth of violent rhetoric and obsession with guns and the second amendment.  Michelle Malkin’s list spans ten years, and includes such horrors as someone throwing a cup of salad dressing in Pat Buchanan’s face, and someone throwing an ice cream pie at Bill Kristol. Such delicious violent rhetoric, innit?

Render unto me a break.

1 If this or this or this is the best you can come up with, put down your  gun and seek help.  Tell your physician you’re suffering from Acute Stupid.

[via American Prospect; via Coalition to Stop Gun Violence]

***The nitwits were at my little corner of the intertrons.

[cross-posted here at ABLC]

[Well, this oughta be interesting. Have at it. -ABL]

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






359 replies
  1. 1
    rob! says:

    We were watching coverage of the shooting on Saturday night on MSNBC, and they had some pundit on who was so desperate to ride the whole “Both sides do it” hobby horse that, as an example of Violence On The Left, he brought up groups like The Weatherman who bombed government buildings during the Vietnam War. So, you see, “both sides do it.”

    Yep, his best example of violence on the left was from FORTY YEARS AGO. That was the best he could do.

    I shook my head, half enraged and half amused because it was so predictable, and changed the channel.

  2. 2
    PurpleGirl says:

    How are your parents doing? Has the area calmed down now? I hope they (and you) are doing well.

    (Comment on this very good post coming once my full brain turns on.)

  3. 3
    "Fair and Balanced" Dave says:

    Heh indeedy

  4. 4
    Tom M says:

    Scott Eric Kaufman has an interesting take on the word rhetoric that can be helpful in looking at the differences between what your Palinbeckbaugh right wing loon says and, e.g., Olbermaddow.
    I especially like his post because he uses Aristotle’s blog post on same.

    For them to be rhetorical, as per Aristotle in On Rhetoric, they would need to be intended to persuade. Moreover, they would need to be intended to persuade a particular audience to undertake a particular action.

    As to the Palin map and why it’s violent rhetoric:

    This rhetoric is violent, then, because it was intended to appeal to an audience whose imaginations would be stoked by a reference to shooting things.

  5. 5
    Phyllis says:

    It’s funny in a way. We hear this same crap from the kids* all the time:

    It’s not fair

    She doesn’t like me/She’s always picking on me/I dunno, she picks on me for no reason/She’s just mean, she picks on everybody

    That’s a stupid rule**

    *I work in a school district

    **Actually, we hear this, and all the others, from parents as well.

  6. 6
    honus says:

    Scott Roeder’s killing of Dr. Tiller was directly related to violent rhetoric targeting specific individuals. And the pro life movement is undeniably a creature of the right. The Pittsburgh cop-killer and the Knoxville Unitarian church shooter were overtly inspired by right wing rhetoric, as was the Tides Foundation suspect who was apprehended before he killed. To bring up the famously inept Weathermen (who attempted to carry out their bombings to avoid any loss of life) as a counterpoint is a joke.

  7. 7
    aimai says:

    Great post, ABL. Just a great post.

    aimai

  8. 8
  9. 9
    blogreeder says:

    @The Grand Panjandrum: Ya, it’s just as stupid as blaming the cold on Global Warming.

  10. 10
    rachel says:

    @The Grand Panjandrum: Wow, the Almighty sure does have a bad aim.

  11. 11
    Chyron HR says:

    @blogreeder:

    Fuckin’ climates, how do they work?

    It’s a mystery.

  12. 12
    JPL says:

    Unfortunately the conversation is turning to “poor Sarah” and false equivalencies rather that the hate that has permeated through our country. Rush has for years painted those that disagreed with him as the enemy. Yesterday Gifford’s brother-in-law released a statement that is not getting enough attention.

    As I look out the window, I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not……..
    These days, we are constantly reminded of the unspeakable acts of violence and damage we can inflict upon one another, not just with our actions but also with our irresponsible words. We are better than this. We must do better.

    It doesn’t play into the narrative the MSM wants to discuss spin.

  13. 13
    wonkie says:

    I’m really bothered by the progressives and liberals who try to diconnect teh Arizona shootings form the Tea Party and Republican rhetoric in the vicinity. I can understand why the teatards themselves try to make the disconnect and i can underrstand why the corportate media tries to hide behind false equivalencies–they share the responsiblity. But why do some liberals, Democrats, or progressives try to make the case that we “don’t know” or we can;t “just jump to conlclusins” that a crazy person got his target choice from the all-pervasive atmosphere of intimidation directed toward Griffords fromthe Tea Party picketers, her opponenet and the local hate talk radio:?

    Denial just means we have to wait for some more people to be killed before facingup tothe connection.

    SOme guy has been arrested for threatening to kill Sen. Bennet and Congressman Davis got a phne called that said, “You are next.”

  14. 14
    Ash Can says:

    @blogreeder: SCIENCE IS A HOAX

  15. 15
    RSA says:

    @Tom M:
    __

    This rhetoric is violent, then, because it was intended to appeal to an audience whose imaginations would be stoked by a reference to shooting things.

    I can’t help noticing the cultural aspect of the rhetoric. Maybe rightwingers could switch to NASCAR metaphors?

    I’m reminded of an argument I once got into with a woman lawyer about the competitiveness in her field. Apparently (I don’t know from personal experience) rape metaphors were common–bending an opposing lawyer over a desk and… You get the idea. She talked like that with her colleagues, too, believing that it was necessary to keep up, and even saying that it was empowering. My view was that even if no one got raped literally, this sort of talk creates a terrible atmosphere. Your opponents, whether in law or politics, are people, not objects.

  16. 16
    gogol's wife says:

    I wish everyone would read “The Brothers Karamazov.” It gives such a beautiful depiction of how one should always be mindful of the smallest words and actions, because all of us are interconnected. (Spoiler alert!) Dmitri Karamazov didn’t kill his father, but at the end he takes responsibility for how the violence of his words and actions contributed to an atmosphere that made the murder possible, even probable. The way the Palinites are responding shows that they haven’t the slightest understanding of that kind of ethical awareness.

  17. 17
    kay says:

    Gifford felt she was at increased risk due to Palin’s rhetoric. End of story.

    Gifford is the one and only person who is in a position to judge acceptable risk. Sarah Palin can’t weigh Gifford’s estimation of the increased risk. Conservative pundits can’t judge acceptable risk to Gifford. They’re not the ones who have to deal with the consequences. Gifford is.

    Gifford said so. She said the rhetoric was alarming to her, and she feared there might be consequences. That’s all it should have taken.

    The arrogance is absolutely astonishing. When Gifford told Palin that Palin’s rhetoric was scaring her, Palin has to listen to that.

    Sarah Palin can’t weigh the increased risk to Gifford, and determine it’s negligible, or non-existent, or acceptable.

    Because that’s what she’s doing, and that’s what every conservative pundit is doing, when they dismissed the words of the actual target. Why weren’t those words enough? Why was Gifford herself ignored?

  18. 18
    mistermix says:

    I was looking for Sarah Palin’s apology so I could show that it is just the same as the apology from the guy who put up that “dead to me” post at Daily Kos, but I couldn’t find it. Could someone post a link so I could make that important argument?

  19. 19
    Pat says:

    O’Palinbeckbaughs….I love it!

  20. 20
    Keith G says:

    Those who have used inflammatory rhetoric bear responsibility.

    Where is the proof? Saying something, even wishing something with all one’s heart will not make it so. Be a lawyer. Prove the case you are making. If you do, I will cheer you on loudly.

    If innocents are going to die, I would rather it be for some inkling of a greater good. If such a linkage of responsibility were to be shown to exist, and then a sickened nation rose up to change it’s tolerance of this poisonous rhetoric, I would be hopeful and feel less empty.

    Until then, isn’t your claims of their responsibility in a mass murder a form of inflammatory rhetoric?

  21. 21
    Lorna says:

    Again, people here very misled. Amazing how you all are taking this tragedy and USING it for political gain. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. This website, I have learned over the last couple of days does not deal with facts, just a lot of name calling. That has always been my experience with the progressive left. No facts to point to, just name calling. Very grown up of all of you, very progressive!

    Is your political progressive agenda failing? So you feel you need to lay blame for this tragedy at someone other than Jared Lee Loughner? You say here that the right will do this the right will do that, you give asinine examples of Rhetoric. You say its not on the left, not nearly as bad. Please, you people are so transparent. Last night in an interview Bob Beckel said, “he invented” the targets on a map back in the 70’s. He seems pretty left to me. He said it was ridiculous all this talk about Palins campaign map.

    So all this crap you all are trying to disguise under the pretense of violent hateful rhetoric, lets get to what your agenda really is………….your left wing progressive agenda is disintegrating before your eyes and you are grasping at whatever you can to try to save it. Shame on all of you!

    Now to comment on the post…….you name names and say how they are pushing violence, yet you don’t give any evidence, no quotes, and nowhere that you can hear/see them straight from the source. You would be much more credible if you would give where you could find it for yourself, not quoting some left wing nut progressive journalist that has an agenda. Here I will give you an example.

    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.”

    This is a statement made by then candidate Obama, now President…………..was he actually telling people to pick up arms? Now I will tell you where and when he made this statement so you can find it for yourself. A speech that he gave on 6/13/2008 in Philly. Go ahead google for yourself.

    There are more statements of “violence” just for the plucking…..that’s the great thing about the web! Now I don’t know any comments from the peanut gallery? You cant say that he is not a prominent Democrat in a leadership role!

    Let’s see, one blogger wants an example of violence on the left………..okay here is a recent one, that actually the media tried to pin her actions on the right too, saying she was a right wing extremist, only to find out NOPE. AMY BISHOP………Obama supporter, socialist! Killed three, wounded three others. Again, just google her name…..you can get all the back ground on her that you would ever want.

    Oh, how the media was screaming right after the shooting about how she was a right wing extremist…..that didn’t take long to correct, so failure again.

    I don’t know to me that was pretty violent, oh not to mention she shot them over being denied tenure. Years before shooting her own brother.

    So see, just come on out and say what your real agenda is all about. Quit trying to hide behind this terrible tragedy. It is insulting to all the families who are involved in this tragedy, it is insulting to all Americans, we know what is going on and it is repulsive!

    Oh, I can’t wait for all the grown up name calling!!!!!

  22. 22
    Chris says:

    @wonkie:

    But why do some liberals, Democrats, or progressives try to make the case that we “don’t know” or we can;t “just jump to conlclusins” that a crazy person got his target choice from the all-pervasive atmosphere of intimidation directed toward Griffords fromthe Tea Party picketers, her opponenet and the local hate talk radio:?

    Because this is a case where the guy’s politics are completely random and unclear, so it’s harder to tie a direct line to Sarah Palin and her friends’ rhetoric than it would be with Tim McVeigh or any other straight-up militia member.

    I can easily understand the logic behind that, but I don’t agree with the argument myself. Partly, because I think the dehumanizing, terror-inducing rhetoric (similar to the Clinton years) has clearly played an important part in convincing regular assholes that shooting Democrats (notice this hasn’t happened to a Republican yet) was acceptable. Partly it’s because I remember the post-election stats explaining that death threats to the White House had gone up several hundred percent and that right-wing militias were recruiting like mad for the first time in a decade (again something with no equivalent on the left even in the Bush years).

    But mostly, actually… it’s because I remember how conservatives have held Muslims, immigrants and leftists, and their leaders, collectively responsible for every crime that could be even remotely tied to them (even in cases like the DC sniper when the perpetrator was clearly a nut with no political or identity motives). That’s been the case for as long as I’ve been alive and longer, and it’s often led to actual “retaliatory” violence (e.g. the wave of anti-Muslim hate crimes after 9/11).

    So today, for once, the shoe’s on the other foot. Is it fair to conservatives that people are connecting the dots between this crime and their politicians and pundits? Moot point, because I can’t even pretend that I care. If they’ve never been here for us, I don’t see why the frakk I should be here for them now.

  23. 23
  24. 24
    WereBear says:

    They laugh about shooting their opponents because only a nut would do it.

    Except; there are nuts out there. And they know it.

    If walk into a preschool class and start chanting “Hit somebody, hit somebody!” then somebody is going to get hit. It won’t be the teachers, or the aides, it will be one of the three or four year olds; but it’s going to happen.

    Was it my fault?

  25. 25

    Let me add, William Rivers Pitt’s column has a list of violent hate-speech from the right that goes back to the Clinton years. I had no idea some of the crap John Derbyshire said about Chelsea Clinton….

  26. 26
    agrippa says:

    “Both sides do it” means nothing. It is merely an attempt to escape from the consequences of their own bad conduct.

    The answer to that: “When I an done dealing with you, I will deal with them.”

  27. 27
    Ash Can says:

    @Keith G: Is this snark? It’s early and I haven’t had my coffee yet, so it may have gone over my head.

    In the event it’s not snark, though, don’t ask ABL whether they bear responsibility, ask the right-wing/GOP leaders themselves why they’re running for cover, scrambling to go on the defensive, and scrubbing their web sites of evidence. They could tell you about the responsibility they bear — if they were ever to utter an honest word, that is.

  28. 28
    sixers says:

    @WereBear:

    That a four year old hit someone afte you told them? Yes. Is this the same as what happened in Arizona. No.

    This whole post is honestly bullshit until you hear why the guy said he did it. From what I read his beliefs are all over the place and pinning it on one sides rhetoric AT THIS MOMENT is not possible. Don’t let that stop you from being the lefts version of the conspiracy theorists.

  29. 29
    mzrad says:

    O’Palinbeckbaughs, that’s brilliant. What a collection.

    I respectfully submit a poem John Cleese wrote about Sean Hannity, just so he feels included:

    “Ode to Sean Hannity” by John Cleese

    Aping urbanity
    Oozing with vanity
    Plump as a manatee
    Faking humanity
    Journalistic calamity
    Intellectual inanity
    Fox Noise insanity
    You’re a profanity
    Hannity

  30. 30
    wonkie says:

    Chris–I am not aware of conservatives in general being held responsible for the shooting in Arizona. My own comment put the responsiblity on the Teaparty and Repubicans and hate talk radio host of the vincinity of the shooting. I probably should narrow that to exclude hypothetical Republicans in the vicintiy that might be as disgusted with the hate rhetoric as I am.

    The theme I am hearing is that those Republicans who engage in hateful violent rhetoric share the responsiblity for inciting the crazy guy.

    There’s a diary on Kos about a certain kind of terrorist and I can’t remember the term but its the kind of terrorist who uses language to inspire someone else to go out and do the act. That’s the phenomenon we’re got here.

    I get the desire not to sink to the level of group blame. I don’t want all Republicans or all conservatives to be blamed. ( although I do think that all Repbuicans and all conservatives need to do some serious and honest evaluating of the tactics of the party they have supported in the past). However I think that everyone needs to aviod being an enabler for the the terrorism-by-proxy that is an establish tactic of the Repubican party. It is enabling to deny the link between violent rhetoric and violent acts

  31. 31
    WereBear says:

    @sixers: pinning it on one sides rhetoric AT THIS MOMENT is not possible

    Well, only one side is advocating shooting people.

    Sometimes, it is that easy.

  32. 32
    pickledjazz says:

    @Keith G….would you like me to prove it if it was your 9 year old child and other family that was gunned down. Enough of with the ‘do shit’ defence shenanigens. Stop with all these defence mechanisms. The fact is everyone must bear responsibility for encouraging listening or not taking a stance,by merely giving these people platforms, especially politicians who are supposedly leaders in the public’s eyes.
    What are you teaching the up and coming young children when it is okay to say and do these things, eg,crosshairs on maps in public? Is this what we want for them?
    Shucks, if you cannot be responsible in words and actions get the hell out of public office.

  33. 33
    SFAW says:

    although I do think that all Repbuicans and all conservatives need to do some serious and honest evaluating of the tactics of the party

    I put that probability as somewhat less likely than:
    1) Pigs flying
    2) Hell freezing over
    3) People mistaking me for George Clooney

    But I’ll keep checking the skies and the outdoor thermometer, just in case. (But not the mirror: self-flagellation is not my thing.)

  34. 34
    wonkie says:

    Oh I think the possiblity of Republican voters taking responsiblity for the quality and tactics of their candidates is near zero , too. People who could do thathave already abandonned the R party., Gabby Griffords was a former Republican.

  35. 35
    Ash Can says:

    @sixers: The guy in AZ did what some right-wing anti-government spokespeople for months and years have implied, and in some cases come right out and said, someone should do. Now these same spokespeople are in full-bore denial, backpedal, and CYA mode.

    And when we point this out we’re conspiracy theorists. Yeah. Got it.

  36. 36
    JPL says:

    My opinion is that words have consequences and Sarah and Glenn are facing the consequences of their reckless behavior. Did they influence the shooter, probably not, but were their words reckless, YES. Sarah and others are learning a basic fact of life, there are natural consequences.

  37. 37
    Keith G says:

    @Ash Can: Not snark.

    …don’t ask ABL whether they bear responsibility, ask the right-wing/GOP leaders themselves why they’re running for cover, scrambling to go on the defensive, and scrubbing their web sites of evidence.

    I know for a fact that right-wing/GOP leaders have said many, dumb, and hurtful, and dangerous stuff. Of course they are scrubbing sites and shredding docs. And I also know that I hate it when the GOP uses appeals to emotion (usually fear/anger) to buttress a case for which it has no logical support to make their point.

    I am just asking ABL and all others to gather the logical support for this case that is being made.

    If these accusations do not stick, then it will be harder to make this case in the future and I do feel that unless these rhetorical behaviors are changed, our political fragmentation can only grow more dangerous.

    edited for block quote fail

  38. 38
    HRA says:

    @wonkie:

    at #33

    Yes, it was the presence of Palin spouting incendiary words during the primary that told me I don’t belong in the same party with her and her followers. I kept the R till after the election hoping there was a message to be sent to the R party to show not all Rs were made of the same idiocy as McCain/Palin and I could hardly wait till I expunged the R for they did nothing to stop her rhetoric.
    So now they want to point fingers in the other direction rather than to at least have one person come out and tell the truth of not speaking out when they should have done so from the beginning.

  39. 39
    PurpleGirl says:

    I posted this in a thread last night, and folks, I really think it’s pertinent to the topic. From Nicole Sandler via Suburban Guerilla.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

    Videos of the right-wing people spewing the violence intercut with You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught.

  40. 40
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @sixers: And you miss the point again. When Republican leaders start spouting about “second amendment remedies” and using silhouettes with the initials DWS as shooting practice targets, and some guy shoots a Congressperson, then they should be thinking about how their rhetoric might have contributed, not try to rewrite history or claim that everyone is censoring them.

  41. 41
    Ash Can says:

    @Keith G: So unless a shooter comes right out and says “[right-wing crazy of your choice] made me do this” we can’t have a discussion about what violent rhetoric is or may be doing to the socio-political climate at large? We can’t posit that there’s any connection between violent words and violent deeds? Because if we do and there’s no clear and direct connection in this case it undermines our argument in all future instances, and no one will ever see any connection between violent words and violent deeds because of it?

    I guess after reading through umpteen posts and comments on this site alone over the past few days that do in fact gather the logical support you say you’re looking for, I just don’t understand what you’re getting at.

  42. 42
    Keith G says:

    @pickledjazz: We are talking about a specific criminal act committed by a particular individual. We have yet to know with any certainty what the shooter’s motive was or what elements contributed to that motive.

    …would you like me to prove it if it was your 9 year old child and other family that was gunned down

    Appeal to emotion. Yes? “9/11” was a ginormous appeal to emotion. I want my side to do better.

    Shucks, if you cannot be responsible in words and actions get the hell out of public office.

    I agree 1000%, and that is a very important separate topic from what caused this crime, unless connections are shown to exist.

  43. 43
    DanF says:

    Holy crap … If just one of those things committed on that csgv.org list was committed by a liberal, Malkin, Erik son of Erick Erik Erick, and any one associated with Fox News would have esploded from hyper-ventilating. I remember most of the events listed, but not all of them… Wow.

  44. 44
    SteveinSC says:

    @Southern Beale: William Rivers Pitt’s Open Letter was perfect. For all the trolls and their exquisite apologists who post on this blog, read it and then STFU. There is no equvalency between the right and left on this. Now we are hearing all this “tone it down” smarmy bullshit from Murdoch’s hand puppet, Roger Ailes. Sensationalism has been Murdoch’s modus operandi forever in Great Britain, Australia, etc. They know that incendiary shit works and they will use it again. They have no particular allegience except to profit, without regard to consequences. These vipers should not be allowed to climb back under a rock to escape. The best way to do that is to “target” them in their most vulnerable part, the fucking money. We need to get behind a boycott of the advertisers who fuel these bastards.

  45. 45
    liberal says:

    @Keith G:

    We have yet to know with any certainty what the shooter’s motive was or what elements contributed to that motive.

    The case as I see it is that this individual was a paranoid schizophrenic. Those folks are often nuts about government (“the CIA is controlling my mind!”). The evidence linking the Right to his actions is the presence of right-wing shibboleths in his writings.

  46. 46
    DanF says:

    @Keith G: Keith – Click the csgv.org link provided by ABL. It lists actual violence by people on the right. Do you remember in 2009 when the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis released an assessment of right wing extremism? It was titled: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. “Political Climate” does not refer to the temperature on election day. It was an assessment by intelligence professionals that the rhetoric on the right has become dangerous and is encouraging violence. That’s logical support. It was spelled out. It was analyzed by professionals. People were warned. Then it happens. Looking at the csgv link, it has happened many times. But we need to study it more??? Get more support? What will it take?

  47. 47
    liberal says:

    Here’s a thought: we’re not going to get the Right to tone down its eliminationist rhetoric. Maybe we should start using our own? On a tit-for-tat(*) basis: people/groups who use eliminationist rhetoric will be exposed to the same.

    ———

    Why tit-for-tat: iterated prisoner’s dilemmas, possible basis for evolution of human non-kin-directed altruism, blah blah blah.

  48. 48
    Bex says:

    @rob!: Andrea Mitchell did that last night on NBC. Just another example of our hopeless media.

  49. 49
    El Cid says:

    @DanF: The department also issued one about the left. It had a few suggestions that there could be eco-terrorists lighting developments on fire, etc. Unlike was screamed at the time, DHS didn’t just go after right wingers, especially in that vicious way that liberals do of using facts and stuff.

  50. 50
    Keith G says:

    @Ash Can: So unless a shooter comes right out and says “[right-wing crazy of your choice] made me do this” we can’t have a discussion about what violent rhetoric is or may be doing to the socio-political climate at large? We can’t posit that there’s any connection between violent words and violent deeds?

    Not the case at all. The above is simply an example of argumentum absurdum (not too far away from an appeal to emotion) which is sorta like saying the terrorists hate us because of Britney Spears.

    Of course we can posit that there are connections between violent words and violent deeds. But do not confuse a posit with a poof.

    Here is a link to a view that at root of this crime was something other that partisan rhetoric.

    http://motherjones.com/kevin-d.....-he-did-it

    I will note that this is also just a theory yet to be adequately examined.

  51. 51
    DanF says:

    @El Cid: Yes – If only the Democrats would publicly denounce their Eco-Terrorist Caucus and tone down their Cap-in-your-ass and Trade rhetoric.

  52. 52
    SteveinSC says:

    @Keith G: Nominated and elected to the List of Exquisite Apologists.

  53. 53
    danimal says:

    Here’s the thing. Folks point to the shooter’s insane ramblings as if it exonerates the Wurlitzer’s role. But the concern all along has been that by amplifying the tensions, a disturbed person would take to the streets and answer the conservative call to arms. Now one has.

    Giffords is on tape at the time when the Palin ‘target’ posting was released clearly expressing her safety concern. The Beltway wants to make this a Hinckley-type assassination attempt, but it was expressly political. There is no Jodie Foster. Maybe Loughner wasn’t a Beck or Palin acolyte (that hasn’t been proven or disproven), but he knew his action would have a political effect.

    If Palin truly believes in God, perhaps this is the time when she listens to the divine spirit whispering in her ear to STFU with all the violent imagery. People are dying; this stuff is even more inappropriate now. Don’t reload; repent.

  54. 54
    batemapa says:

    @liberal:
    i’ve read all of his writing i can find on the net, and i think you’re making a mistake if you call any of that bat-shit craziness “evidence” linking him to the Right.

    are there maybe some common themes? yes. but to say there is “evidence” that “links” him to the Right is misleading and cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form at this point.

    Believe me, I’ll be the first one to tear the Right their 400th new asshole for this if we learn he was directly influenced by their messages, but I’m not going to make a leap in logic and reason just so i can find a reason to criticize the Right. (mainly because I dont need another reason, plenty to go around)

    Having said that, at the very least the rhetoric doesn’t help and can’t possibly help anything except to entice irrational thought and behavior. for this reason it should be toned down. and this tragedy may be a product of that, i just don’t think any of us are in a position to say it IS yet.

  55. 55
    Keith G says:

    @liberal:

    The evidence linking the Right to his actions is the presence of right-wing shibboleths in his writings.

    What if those right-wing shibboleths are just notions common to unhealthy thinking and were derived independently?

    @DanF:

    But we need to study it more??? Get more support? What will it take

    Again, this specific crime may or may not have it’s genesis in the words and actions of the Right Wing/GOP rabble and the things mentioned in the report you link. We will know a lot by the end of this week, but it may take the results of an extended legal process (subpoenas etc) to know why and how this sick man was led to violence.

  56. 56
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @batemapa: I like what Jon Stewart sez, we should tone down the rhetoric just so we can tell who the actually crazies are. Right now it’s too hard to tell so Homeland Security spends all it’s time infiltrating and monitoring Quaker groups.

  57. 57
    Some says:

    I took a look at the last few days of posts on Redstate. They are feeding on the criticism. Just like Fox and the rest of the angry, resentful right, the site exists mainly to provide a fix for outrage addicts, so being told to tone it down is awesome sauce for them.

  58. 58
    Paul in KY says:

    @Lorna: Lorna, you’re a stupid fool (had to get in a little name calling).

    Methinks ye doth protest too much (I’m riffing off a famous play, but you’ll probably be unable to figure out the context).

  59. 59
    WereBear says:

    @Keith G: What if those right-wing shibboleths are just notions common to unhealthy thinking and were derived independently?

    Wait, we’re “rushing to judgment” because this particular deranged person might have arrived at their “shoot people” position independently… yet all of right wing thought is that of a crazy person?

    I’m not disagreeing with that. It’s just difficult to parse out your point.

  60. 60
    DanF says:

    @Keith G: And again … Look at the link provided by ABL. It is replete with actions OTHER than this one, of right wingers who were clearly influenced by right-wing rhetoric to take violent action. Don’t pretend this is a one-off. It’s just the first time a politician has been hit.

  61. 61
    batemapa says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: don’t you know the Religious Society of Friends is the greatest threat to national security?!

  62. 62
    Keith G says:

    @SteveinSC: Ya know Steve, the sad thing is is that I am not apologizing for a thing. You have just made an untrue and ill thought out claim (you are not alone in this) about some none existent apology.

    Please feel free to use the cut and past function to illustrate my apologies (to whom?/for what?)

  63. 63
    Lorna says:

    @Paul in KY: Brilliant Paul, just Brilliant……..can’t contradict anything in my post? You are the man!

  64. 64
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Tweety had some asshat conservative on yesterday who vehemently disagreed with him when he was talking about how assassination is an American phenomena, unlike other parts of the world. That it happens here more than elsewhere, rattling off names of politicians who were shot in the past, some of whom were killed. When Tweety asked the asshat to provide any examples that countered his opinion, the asshat said something to the effect:

    What is this, some pop quiz? Let me study it and I’ll get back to you about it.

    He disagreed but had no evidence to support that disagreement and wanted time to study it so he could prove Tweety was wrong. That’s your typical conservative right there; no facts in hand to support their position other than they are right and you are wrong. I don’t care much for Matthews but he did a good job of badgering that asshat.

    Excellent post, ABL. Absolutely on target. Oops! I meant bullseye! Ummmm…. Dead on. Ummmm… Great job!

    Yeah, that’s the ticket! :)

  65. 65
    Paul in KY says:

    @Lorna: Your post is not worthy of rebuttal.

    You list a couple rhetorical points by my side (none of them in any way like the bile & frothing from the Right) and claim that absolves your side from any incitement charges.

    Sarah! ran ads with a gunsight on the congresswoman who had a hole put through her head (and then he proceeded to shoot up all the commie/libs who were there to see her, including a little girl).

    If I wanted to, I could probably make you cry. But I have work to do & you’re not worth the effort. Fuck off.

  66. 66
    El Cid says:

    @DanF: Exactly. It’s just a few steps from asking people to bring their own reusable grocery bags to burning down ski resort projects.

  67. 67
    Keith G says:

    @DanF:

    actions OTHER than this one

    Exactly.

    I agree those cited are bad actors. I know that Palin has poisoned political rhetoric. I hate that the lies told by her and others go unchallengeable by the general media. I throw up in my mouth every time I see or hear Limbaugh, Gringrich and a few other getting to spread their vitriol.

    Nonetheless, allow me to repeat myself:

    Again, this specific crime may or may not have it’s genesis in the words and actions of the Right Wing/GOP rabble

  68. 68
    Chris says:

    I have to defend KeithG, at least on the “CIA controlling minds” front. In my experience (no scientific samples, just stuff I’ve heard and read over the years), conspiracy theories involving the CIA are at least as likely to come from left wing as right wing people.

    The fact is, despite what the right wing likes to say about us, there’s at least as much distrust of government and authority among Democrats as Republicans. Inevitably, that means some people on both sides will cross the line into full-blown conspiracy theory (from the people who believe Bush planned 9/11 to the people who believe the government invented AIDS to exterminate black people/gay people).

    Interesting, though, that 1) mainstream Democrats usually try to tone down this craziness while mainstream Republicans usually egg it on, and 2) somehow, our crazies don’t usually cross the line into violence the way theirs do.

  69. 69
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Lorna:

    WIFS;MHBDOIC

    (Writer Is Fucking Stupid;Must Have Brain Damage Or Is Conservative)

    Again, people here very misled. Amazing how you all are taking this tragedy and USING it for political gain.

    This was a political hit job, fed and coddled by the rabid right. It doesn’t matter if he was one of you assholes or not, the crazies on your side egged him on and you assholes got what you wanted. You fuckers HATE liberals, you assholes rabidly HATE them and this shit is exactly what you wanted to happen. Now you are angry that people are calling you fuckwits out on it? You assholes have politicized every damned thing you can in your attempt to destroy this country. Everything is all about you assholes, you are never wrong and everyone else is.

    The Pima County sheriff was right and you know it. You KNOW IT! STFU and go whine with your fellow assholes.

    Turds of an odor all float together and they need your stench.

  70. 70
    Elisabeth says:

    @Lorna:

    2008 from the link:

    July 27, 2008—Jim Adkisson shoots and kills two people at a progressive church in Knoxville, Tennessee, wounding two. Adkisson calls it “a symbolic killing” because he really “wanted to kill…every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg’s book,” but was unable to gain access to them.

    September 18, 2008—Dick Heller, the plaintiff from the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, provides testimony to the D.C. Council regarding firearm-related legislation. Heller’s written, submitted testimony states, in part: “‘We the people,’ armed, are TRULY what the Writers of the Constitution intended for us to be in Art. 1, Sec. 8, para. 15, and that is the CITIZEN MILITIA. If suicide terrorists DO attact our city, ARMED CITIZENS could be the First to counter these hostilities in our individual neighborhoods.”

    September 22, 2008—The National Rifle Association launches its GunBanObama website, which predicts that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, “if elected…would be the most anti-gun president in American history.” The website is part of a $15 million NRA campaign to discredit Obama.

    December 9, 2008—FBI teams investigating the murder of white supremacist James Cumming, 29, a resident of Belfast, Maine, find supplies for a crude radiological dispersal dervice and other explosives in his home. Cumming’s wife, who shot him to death after being abused by him repeatedly, explains, “His intentions were to construct a dirty bomb and take it to Washington to kill President Obama. He was planning to hide it in the undercarriage of our moter home.”

  71. 71
    Keith G says:

    @WereBear: That was a throw away line/attempt at humor.

    Sick guy said X. GOP said X.

    Is that a result of cross pollination, or is saying X just an independently manifested symptom of a paranoid mind?

    Next time I will leave out the weak attempt at humor.

  72. 72
    DanF says:

    @Keith G: Then what is your point? That because this guy may not have been influenced by right-wing rhetoric, our concern that right-wing rhetoric is giving permission to perpetrate violence is false? That is our driving narrative here. If he was influenced by right-wing rhetoric, then this is simply the latest example and the highest political person successfully targeted so far. If it wasn’t, then it’s an instance that deviates from the norm of the past two years of political violence, but it’s bringing that history of violence to the fore.

    You seem only interested in deflecting the narrative because this guy may not be winger. If this narrative keeps Rush from making you throw up in your mouth, funny that you want to push back on it so hard.

  73. 73
    batemapa says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    This was a political hit job, fed and coddled by the rabid right.

    i’m straight up liberal homey, but do you not see how this is the exact same fucking thing wingnuts do all the time? creating a reality with absolutely no evidence, just to help the message you want to be true, for whatever reason?

    again, the violent rhetoric doesn’t do any good for anyone and needs to be toned down, and i’ll be right there with you if it turns out he was influenced by the Right’s rhetoric. but you just sound incredibly irrational and desperate when you say shit like that at this point.

  74. 74
    Elisabeth says:

    @Lorna:

    The first half of 2009 from the link:

    February 20, 2009—FOX commentator Glenn Beck hosts a program that games a 2014 civil war scenario called “The Bubba Effect.” It involves citizen militias in the South and West taking up arms against the U.S. government.

    March 3, 2009— FOX commentator Glenn Beck interviews NRA celebrity spokesman Chuck Norris. During the interview, Beck states that, “Somebody asked me this morning, they said, ‘you really believe that there’s going to be trouble in the future?’ And I said, ‘if this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country … Americans will, they just, they won’t stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up.’ And they said, ‘where’s that going to come from?’ And I said, ‘Texas, it’s going to come from Texas.’”

    March 9, 2009—NRA celebrity spokesman Chuck Norris writes in an editorial published at WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”

    March 11, 2009—NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre speaks at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference and announces that “Our Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”

    March 21-22, 2009—Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) states that she wants residents of her state to be “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.”

    April 4, 2009—Neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski shoots and kills three police officers responding to a 911 call to his home in Pittsburgh. His friend Edward Perkovic tells reporters that Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on its way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.” Perkovic also commented that Poplawski carried out the shooting because “if anyone tried to take his firearms, he was gonna’ stand by what his forefathers told him to do.”

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

    April 15, 2009—Daniel Knight Hayden, 52, is arrested by FBI agents after he openly states on Twitter that he is going to turn the upcoming Oklahoma City “Tea Party” into a bloodbath. Two months earlier, Hayden had written online, “The only thing that is keeping the New World Order from destroying this nation is the presence of over 100,000,000 guns in civilian hands. When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns. Since we are already criminals in the eyes of the New World Order, and they intend to enslave us all, and to kill those of us who will NOT submit to their slavery, I say to IGNORE gun “laws” and keep your guns (AND ammo) handy.”

    April 19, 2009—The Oath Keepers, an anti-government group made up of current and former law enforcement and military personnel, holds its first “muster” in Lexington, Massachusetts, the site of the opening shots of the Revolutionary War. The groups’ members pledge to disobey ten different orders that they deem “unconstitutional” and “immoral,” the first of which reads, “We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.”

    April 25, 2009—Joshua Cartwright, 28, a member of the Florida National Guard, shoots and kills two Okaloosa County sheriff’s deputies attempting to arrest him on a domestic abuse charge. Cartwright is killed in an enusing gun battle with police. Cartwright’s wife reports that he was “severely disturbed” that Barack Obama had been elected president. Okaloosa County Sheriff Edward Spooner states that Cartrwight was “interested in militia groups and weapons training.”

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

    May 21-22, 2009—We The People Chairman Bob Schultz hosts a gathering of 30 “freedom keepers” in Jekyll Island, Georgia. The meeting plays “a key role in launching the current resurgence of militias and the larger anti-government ‘Patriot’ movement.” One of the participants, former Texas militia leader Jon Roland, claims the federal government has “been engaging in warlike activity against the American people.”

    May 31, 2009—Scott P. Roeder shoots and kills Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. The FBI lists Roeder as a member of the Montana Freemen, a radical anti-government group. In April 1996, he had been pulled over in Topeka, Kansas, for driving with a homemade license plate. Police found a military-style rifle, ammunition, a blasting cap, a fuse cord, a one-pound can of gunpowder, and two 9-volt batteries in his car.

    June 3, 2009—Hal Turner, a New Jersey resident and white supremacist blogger/radio host, is arrested on charges of inciting injury after calling for the deaths of two Connecticut state legislators on his blog because they sponsored a bill that would have transferred financial power in Roman Catholic parishes from priests and bishops to lay members. “While filing a lawsuit is quaint and the ‘decent’ way to handle things,” he wrote, “we at TRN (Turner Radio Network) believe that being decent to a group of tyrannical scumbags is the wrong approach. It’s too soft. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers gave us the tools necessary to resolve tyranny: The Second Amendment. TRN advocates Catholics in Connecticut take up arms and put down this tyranny by force … If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they’re going to get uppity with us about this, I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down, too.”

    June 10, 2009—James W. von Brunn, a convicted felon and a “hardcore Neo-Nazi,” walks into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. and shoots and kills a security guard. Von Brunn believed that Western civilization was going to be replaced with a “ONE WORLD ILLUMINATI GOVERNMENT” that would “confiscate private weapons” in order to accomplish its goals.

    June 24, 2009—Hal Turner, a New Jersey resident and white supremacist blogger/radio host, is arrested again after calling for the murder of three Republican-appointed jurists on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals who had issued a June 2 decision upholding handgun restrictions in Chicago. Writing on his blog, Turner says, “Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be killed,” and includes photographs, phone numbers, work addresses, and room numbers of the judges, as well as a map of Chicago’s federal courthouse which points out its “anti-truck bomb” pylons.

    Look up the second half of 2009 for yourself if you care but you’d rather but see the truth.

  75. 75
    DanF says:

    @DanF: And to clarify – the “narrative” I’m talking about is that violent rhetoric has crossed a line and needs to be pulled back and condemned. Not that it’s OK to project motives for political ends.

  76. 76
    Todd Dugdale says:

    To sum up, the Right’s response has been, “How dare you even imply that we’re violent! I oughtta kick your ass, you little faggot!”

  77. 77

    I hate these people. I’m so sick of what we’re becoming as a country. I’m sick of these weasels who scream about death panels, death camps and second amendment remedies now scream that we’re persecuting them or some such bullshit.

    It’s true, a lot of us liberals have been saying some downright unkind things about Sarah Palin and other big conservatives over the last few days… But, shit, if they’re so fucking tough and bold and fearless, then surely they should be strong enough to handle a few nasty words. For so many of these creeps, for all their talk aboout “Don’t retreat, reload!” they really are the world’s biggest pussies.

    Maybe we should just keep calling them out for their vileness. If they’re truly as weak and cowardly as they seem to be right now, then maybe we can shut them up for good without doing anything more than calling them assholes and sociopaths.

  78. 78
    Chris says:

    KeithG, here’s my take on their responsibility;

    Look at times when eliminationist rhetoric hasn’t just existed, but has completely dominated politics (e.g. the rise of the Nazis in Germany, the KKK’s reign in parts of the U.S). Was every crime against Jews/blacks committed by a racist, or by a believer in Dixiecrat/National Socialist ideology? I don’t think so. My guess is a lot of crimes were not politically or even racially motivated; they happened to be perpetrated against Jews/blacks, because politics had created a climate where these guys happened to be acceptable targets.

    This isn’t exactly the same situation, but the same basic logic. Since 1980, the conservative movement has been run by people who, in the words of Paul Krugman, “do not accept government by liberals as legitimate” no matter how they were elected, and will flood the airwaves with torrents of paranoid, revolutionary and yes, eliminationist rhetoric until such time as they’re in charge again – and a ton of people, including folks who aren’t committed conservatives, listen to and believe it.

    That’s where this comes in. The kid’s politics are a completely incoherent, incomprehensible clusterfuck, but he lives in an environment where Democratic politicians are considered enemies of the people and targeted with violent rhetoric on a daily basis – I find it very hard to believe that that didn’t influence his choice of targets.

    Does that make Palin & co at least partly responsible? Matter of perspective, but I would say yes.

  79. 79
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @batemapa:

    It was a political hit, period. If she wasn’t who she is she wouldn’t be wanted dead. It doesn’t matter if the guy was crazy, his writings (if you want to call them that) are comprised of the same stupid shit the crazy right likes to rant about.

    Rush and his ilk hate liberals, full stop. They would never do something like this and that’s why they egg on crazy people with their lies and distortions. They want shit like this to happen. Saying it was a political hit isn’t being irrational or desperate.

    It’s exactly what it is. Homey.

  80. 80
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    Tweety had some asshat conservative on yesterday who vehemently disagreed with him when he was talking about how assassination is an American phenomena, unlike other parts of the world. That it happens here more than elsewhere.

    Sure. Unless you don’t read the papers.

  81. 81
    eemom says:

    been pondering the following hypothetical: suppose the shooter had flat-out said he did this because Sarah Palin told him to? Suppose he had a big fat fucking blowup of her target map in his house with Giffords’ district circled in bright red? Suppose he had tweeted Palin back, “I will Sarah! I WILL reload!” Suppose all his writings demonstrated slavish adherence to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, offering himself as a soldier in their righteous army?

    Then what?

    Any question of causation there?

    “Mea culpa” from the witch in Wasilla? Torrent of apology and contrition from her and Beck and all their cronies?

    FUCK no.

    The response would have been almost identical. “Yeah but he was crazy!! It’s not Palin’s fault he took her literally! He was crazy crazy CRAZY!! Had nothing to do with Palin herself, anymore than Jodie Foster did with Hinckley!!”

    Hinckley Hinckley Hinckley. That’s all we’d be hearing, 24-7.

    That’s my take, anyway.

  82. 82
    matoko_chan says:

    wikileaks say.
    “WikiLeaks: treat incitement seriously or expect more Gabrielle Gifford killing sprees.”
    link

  83. 83
    Chris says:

    @Mumphrey (formerly Renfrew Squeevil (formerly Mumphrey Oddison Yamm (formerly Mumphrey O. Yamm (formerly Mumphrey)))):

    For so many of these creeps, for all their talk aboout “Don’t retreat, reload!” they really are the world’s biggest pussies.

    You reminded me of this line from last fall (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/p.....ers-102710);

    It is one of the biggest dividing lines between liberals and conservatives: sensitivity. Liberals are supposed to be the sensitive ones, but even the liberals who worked themselves into a froth over George W. Bush never really cared very much about what he thought of them. But conservatives care what President Obama thinks. They care to the point of imagining what he thinks.

    Also, I posted a semi-long explanation of my take on GOP responsibility vis a vis this shit, but it’s now in moderation limbo. Damn you liberal censors! Damn you all to hell!

  84. 84
    batemapa says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee: i agree that rush spews hate and vomit non-stop towards liberals. and i’ve got no problem you saying all of this, as long as you realize that 1) there isn’t any proof to support that is was a “political hit”, and 2) you are acting exactly like the Right does when they lack evidence. you’re connecting all the dots how you want to, not based on any eveidence

  85. 85
    sixers says:

    @WereBear:

    But what if he’s never listened to a word the one side said? How are you so sure he has? You wanting or assuming it to be true doesn’t make it so. You all don’t have a clue what was going through his mind at this point.

  86. 86
    Ash Can says:

    I absolutely love how Lorna busts her tail compiling an entire shopping list of false equivalencies for us, then posts it in a thread entitled, yup, “False Equivalencies.”

  87. 87
    HRA says:

    I just read this and I think it’s pertinent to this topic.

    http://www.truth-out.org/the-w.....right66686

  88. 88
    PurpleGirl says:

    I clicked a link in a comment at Slactivist (the topic was the weekly critique of the Left Behind series). The image fits in with this (and most of the current threads).

    http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/post/2656838239

    Yes, it’s Christ with long hair, holding a gun and the caption is “We’ve diagnosed the problem. Help us prescribe the solution.’

  89. 89
    Barb (formerly Gex) says:

    @The Grand Panjandrum: Why is God holding us responsible for gay birds?

  90. 90
    Keith G says:

    @DanF:
    Good, let’s get back to basics. My point in these, now, three days of commentary is that there are two arguments going on.

    First is the specific inquiry into what motivated Jared L. Loughner to commit mass murder. Second is a general debate about the real dangers caused by the hate-filled and eliminationist rhetoric used by many opinion leaders on the Right.

    To me, there is little debate about the second. The successful use of democratic politics to govern this society is increasingly being put at risk by the actions of Palin and many others.

    Many assertions made about the first argument trouble me. To say that the “O’Palinbeckbaughs” are responsible for this killing is premature and if some how proven wrong may indeed damage our ability to make a stronger case in the second argument.

    You seem only interested in deflecting the narrative because this guy may not be winger.

    I hope I seem interested in knowing the truth.

  91. 91
    Barb (formerly Gex) says:

    @gogol’s wife: I spent the summer after I graduated high school reading that book. The idea of Teatards trying to read that book is highly amusing. So many words, so many pages. Their heads might explode.

  92. 92
    El Cid says:

    You knew it was coming. I knew it, you knew it, we all knew it.

    Now, thanks to Politico commentators, finally we can see who is responsible for not calming today’s crazy, hate-filled political climate: Barack Obama.

    Barack Obama’s Oklahoma City moment
    __
    Of all the unfulfilled campaign promises President Barack Obama made in 2008, the one that bothers the president most isn’t any squandered policy priority – it’s his failure to re-civilize what he views as an increasingly savage partisan climate…
    __
    …[T]he shootings in Tucson on Saturday, which he has decried as a “national tragedy,” present a critical opportunity to a president at a crossroads, a chance for Obama to elevate the debased tenor of politics, much as President Bill Clinton attempted in the aftermath of the 1995 terrorist attack in Oklahoma City…
    __
    …Yet Obama has often expressed anger – broadly in public, far more pointedly in private – against conservatives from Rush Limbaugh to Sarah Palin for whipping up anger against him and other Democrats. And few people around Obama were upset at the barrage of criticism unleashed against Republicans on Sunday for standing by while conservatives like Palin used gun-related imagery to score political points against Giffords and others.
    __
    The question is whether Obama joins the partisan fray, flies far above it, or takes the canny middle path successfully navigated by Clinton, who was able to associate Republicans with the degradation of discourse while reaping the political benefits of being labeled as a unifying, post-partisan peacemaker…
    __
    …Obama has yet to show he’s as comfortable in the role of national sympathizer as Clinton, who had a far more intuitive feeling for the nation’s emotional mood…
    __
    Unlike the reflexively public Clinton, Obama’s instinct is to keep private emotions private…

    The funny part of this is not just the insanity of wondering why Obama didn’t use his miraculous healing powers to calm down Republiteatards when he ruined the economy by nationalizing every job with the stimulus or when he provoked them into Stalin Summer by killing our grandparents to give free health care to illegal immigrants.

    It’s that if Obama did every single ‘canny’ Clinton quirk to try to lead and address the irresponsibility of Republican rhetoric while seeming above the fray which they advise, he will still be attacked for politicizing this tragedy and failing to seem properly above the fray.

    In addition, if he shows any emotion then he’s frightening us by showing himself not strong enough for the weight of office, and then if she shows only controlled emotion, then he’s a cold and alienated figure who can’t play the American public like a Stradivarius like Bill Clinton could.

  93. 93
    Kryptik says:

    This quote from Hannah Arendt is possibly the most relevant thing on this issue lately:

    Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.

  94. 94
    Lorna says:

    @Paul in KY: Paul, let me correct you. Palin did not shoot the congresswoman, Jared Loughner did.

    Sarah! did not ran ads, these images were on her fb page and other websites. The image was crosshairs on the congresswoman ‘s DISTRICT ON A MAP, if you have something else please do tell on what website. Bob Beckel said he was the inventor of putting bullseyes or targets on the campaign map. Stop trying to take nothing and make it something to fit your whack agenda. You can’t say that Jared Loughner even visited Palins web or fb page or for that matter watched or listened to tv or radio. If so please let all know where to find that fact!!!!!

    You make statements but offer nothing to back it up. You have no point, just exploitation! You, your side are exploiting the congresswoman, the 9yr old beautiful little girl and everyone else that was part of that tragedy!

    You are not man enough to make me cry, because you have no facts and deal in left wing bs. Run Paul run shouting your obscenities back to your hole in the sand.

  95. 95
    Original Lee says:

    @Southern Beale: Wow. Just wow.

  96. 96
    JamesD says:

    @eemom:

    What if he had all of Obama’s vitriol rhetoric words taped on his wall such as:

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

    Get out there and “punish our enemies”

    “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”

    “Punch back twice as hard.”

    I want to know “whose ass to kick”

    “…I’m itching for a fight.”

    Using your logic (dearth) you would then blame Obama for this nut’s actions?

  97. 97
    Lorna says:

    @Ash Can: Ash can you try to make points………the word is try, you cant even reply with facts from your previous posts. That will be the only thing I hear from You! Good one!

  98. 98
    virginia says:

    @kay:

    This! Thank you so much for this stellar comment. You managed to capture the reality of the situation.

  99. 99
    Kryptik says:

    @JamesD:

    Because those comments are any way comparable to things like ‘second amendment rememdies’, ‘I want Minnesota armed and dangerous’, ‘I want folks to make this guy afraid to step out of his home’, ‘If ballots don’t work, bullets do’, etc.

    Seriously, those Obama quotes are aggressive, but not as explicitly violent rhetoric as so much more that’s come out of the right. The only thing that might come off bad? The ‘If they pull a knife’ quote? That’s from “The Untouchables”, you know.

  100. 100
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Lorna: I see. This shooting happened in a vacuum. There is no context.

  101. 101
    Keith G says:

    @Keith G: Let me add to Hugh and a few others some thing that has been bothering me. I hesitate to bring it up because it is really in the weeds and actually a bit tangential to our discussion:

    If Laughner’s sole focus was to eliminate a political “leader” why the fuck did he only put one slug through (poor choice of bullets) Giffords’s noggin?

    That’s one piss-poor assassin. 32 rounds. One in her head then he moved on.

    Was she really the personal focus of this anger/sickness or had she just crossed his path earlier and became a handy symbol for the delusional hate for this society that was boiling inside of his deteriorating mind?

  102. 102
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @batemapa:

    I’ll make you a deal; you recognize what you want and I’ll do likewise.

    Have a nice day! :)

    @Lorna: “You are not man enough to make me cry, because you have no facts and deal in left wing bs.”

    Aww, isn’t that cute! A wingnut says that someone isn’t man enough to do… whatever.

    Where have I heard that shit before? Oh yeah…

    Is that you Christine?

    Your tea is weak, go soak your bag for a bit longer and try again.

  103. 103
    SFAW says:

    Sarah! did not ran ads, these images were on her fb page and other websites.

    fb? What’s that? Is that a website or something? Have people heard of it? Because it sounds like some small, out-of-the-way site that has such a small viewership, that anything posted there doesn’t really get wide distribution. So I see your point.

    The image was crosshairs on the congresswoman ’s DISTRICT ON A MAP,

    Good point, because that bulls-eye (or “surveyor’s symbol, as Sarah!!’s spox said) covers about 100,000 or so persons, and Loughner couldn’t have been targeting them all. Fortunately, to be helpful, Congresswoman Giffords’s name was listed in the table below the map, so that act by Sarah!!!1! alone saved 999,999 persons (give or take).

    You can’t say that Jared Loughner even visited Palins web or fb page or for that matter watched or listened to tv or radio.

    Well, we can, but that would have (as far as we currently know) as much basis in reality as your scribblings/screechings. And there’s that “fb” thing again. Is that an abbreviation for football? Frog bait? Fairly boozy? F’ing bullshitter? Inquiring minds want to know, ’cause it doesn’t seem to be very-well-known ’round here.

  104. 104
    Lorna says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee: Reading your post, you sound full of hate and a bit dangerous. Do you own a gun? All of you on this blog better take notice to one of your own sounding a little unstable. I don’t hate anybody, you don’t know me so how would you claim that I do? I am not the one on here with the foul language, insults and hateful speech. This is exactly what I am talking about. I think you should get some professional help.

  105. 105
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Keith G:

    Is that a result of cross pollination, or is saying X just an independently manifested symptom of a paranoid mind?

    I’d like to see some evidence from you that being worried about our currency not being on the gold standard is a common delusion among paranoid schizophrenics. It sure as hell is a common delusion on the right and I strongly suspect that’s where Loughner picked it up from, but if you can show me the evidence that it’s a common thing for schizophrenics to believe, then you’re right, it makes it less likely that Loughner got it from the right wing.

    The stuff Loughner was spouting was not just standard “CIA is controlling my mind!” delusions that are common in paranoid schizophrenics. He was saying very specific things that people like Glenn Beck have been pushing for the past two years.

    So my question to you is, how likely is it that he just happened to form his delusions around the same uncommon obsessions the right wing has been pushing for at least the past two years without ever hearing what they were saying?

  106. 106
    Nutella says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    What they should be doing, and are not doing, is calling out and repudiating the specific things that their side has said. They should start with Sharron Angle, who recommended exactly what happened in Tucson when she said that the right response to losing an election is ‘second amendment remedies’.

    What we’re hearing from the right is either general fluff about how we all should get along, or specific charges that the other side does it too.

    The first step for any honest response to these murders is to specifically repudiate Angle’s ‘second amendment remedies’ and if Angle herself doesn’t do so, to drop her from the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and every other political organization she belongs to.

  107. 107
    Paul in KY says:

    @Keith G: He shot her at close range in the head. He had every reason to think she was dead. Have to use the other rounds on the liberal scum there to pal around with her, dontcha know.

  108. 108
    JohnR says:

    @gogol’s wife:

    The way the Palinites are responding shows that they haven’t the slightest understanding of that kind of ethical awareness.

    Thoughtful post – I disagree with this, though. I suspect that many if not all of them do understand it at least in a theoretical sort of way (similar to the way most Christianists understand the teachings in the New Testament). I think they also, like children, are well aware that being clearly ‘wrong’ is bad, but if you can stir up enough dust to hide in, you have a good chance of getting away with it.
    As an aside, the KeithG posts remind me what happens to thoughtful, beard-stroking, pipe-smoking reasonable people faced with increasingly unreasonable, violent groups. You may not win, but if you don’t attempt to call out and face down the bullies, they get more and more powerful and confident. Of course that would require forethought and long-term awareness, which are not what you would call human strengths. Well, I’m off to get some deep-fried twinkies for lunch. With cheesecake for dessert.

  109. 109
    Lorna says:

    @Elisabeth: Elisabeth, if you read my other post I could have saved you some time. I stopped reading the article you are referring to because of J. Horowitz. Would you like me to give you all the crap that the left has done and said through a column of Michelle Malkin? Just a bit slanted on both sides. I have never said that the far whacko right haven’t done horrific things, just as the far whacko left has, but I am not about to try to exploit what happened in Arizona as I see the progressive left doing by trying to pin this on the right. I think it is shameful.

    Now if you have a neutral website or words out of someones mouth that I can find for myself, I am open to it.

  110. 110
    Original Lee says:

    @Lorna: I’m curious as to why you are feeling so defensive about all of this. Guilty conscience, perhaps? Feeling a wee bit uncomfortable because your TV or radio has certain channels bookmarked as favorites? Perhaps some of the quotes being used as examples of violent rhetoric sounded pretty good to you until Saturday afternoon?

    BTW, in case you haven’t been paying attention, this blog is notorious for foul language, insults, and hateful speech, so you shouldn’t be surprised that some of it has been directed at you.

  111. 111
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne: I donno, but I am not the one making accusations about complicity. As an old liberal, I always like to see the accusers prove their case.

  112. 112
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Keith G:

    If Laughner’s sole focus was to eliminate a political “leader” why the fuck did he only put one slug through (poor choice of bullets) Giffords’s noggin?

    He shot her in the back of the head, execution style. The exit wound was on her forehead. 90% of the people who are shot like that die. Frankly, it’s a miracle that she’s alive at all, much less able to communicate with her doctors, and I’m not someone who believes in miracles.

    So he had every reason to believe he’d killed her when he shot her and didn’t need to shoot her again.

    Was she really the personal focus of this anger/sickness or had she just crossed his path earlier and became a handy symbol for the delusional hate for this society that was boiling inside of his deteriorating mind?

    Or did he (try to) kill her and then start shooting the evil Democrats there who were trying to control his mind?

    If he had shot her in another setting — inside the grocery store itself, at her home, outside of her office, etc. — then that theory might make sense. But he shot her at a political rally that was filled with her staffers and constituents. It seems pretty unlikely to me that that was a complete coincidence.

  113. 113
    handy says:

    @El Cid:

    Yeah because Obama injecting himself into this discussion would have so soothed the wingnut poo flingers. They’re just looking, longing, breathlessly waiting for his bold leadership on this. All he’s got to do is deliver another great speech from his TelePrompter and they will all magically see the light.

  114. 114
    Original Lee says:

    @Nutella: You know, I’ve wondered why Ms. Angle hasn’t been charged with sedition. Does an insurrection actually have to happen?

  115. 115
    Paul in KY says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee: Thank’s for squishing her. She’s really not worth my effort (or yours for that matter).

    Lorna dear, Sarah! and Glen Beck have that little girl’s blood on their hands. They can wash & scrub & disinfect & lie & spin, but it doesn’t change the fact. They incited one of their wackos to kill a congresswoman & he decided to take out a few more while he was at it (after all, they were traitorous liberal scum, weren’t they).

    Sputter away…

  116. 116
    Lorna says:

    @SFAW: Witty, but you have made my point. What was Bob Beckel and the Dem. Congressional congress committee YEARS before palins map, aiming at with their targets/bullseyes? Please do answer!

  117. 117
    SFAW says:

    I am not the one on here with the foul language, insults and hateful speech.

    No, you’re just the apologist for the ones on your side who use it. Well, actually, just the hateful and violent speech. What’s especially charming is that, in light of the CSGV items posted here, which you can presumably read, there is no indication that you will take a moment to pause and reflect on the raving lunatics which populate your side, and that MAYBE you shouldn’t be so quick to defend them.

    And MAYBE, after that all-too-brief period of reflection, you will have an epiphany: to wit, that the major “thought” (and I use the term loosely) leaders on the right side have been spouting the speech of eliminationism for a long time – well before Obama was elected. (Remember “Liberal Hunting Permits”? Those weren’t give TO liberals, they were given to wingnuts FOR deer liberals.) Unfortunately, if you actually reached the logical and correct conclusion that the quasi-incitement-to-violence is primarily a right-wing modus operandi, you might feel compelled to commit seppuku out of shame. And I wouldn’t want your suicide on my conscience. So, please, stay as clueless as you are.

    I think you should get some professional help.

    Wingnut, heal thyself.

  118. 118

    @Lorna:

    This is just plainly, utterly disingenuous. Yes, Obama said those 2 things you quoted above. But amazingly, that’s about as near as he ever got to violent speech. That’s it. There’s no pattern.

    With Sarah Palin, with Rush Limbaugh, with Glenn Beck, with many Republican officeholders, whether U.S. senators or lowly state delegates or representatives, with pundits and columnists, this violent talk is commonplace. I understand, and I think most liberals do, that you can’t choose one thing Sara Palin wrote or said, or one thing Rush Limbaugh bleated on his radio show, or one thing Glenn Beck choked out between sobbing fits and say, “Yes, that’s it, that’s what led this guy Loughner to shoot up a political gathering!” That isn’t the point. We aren’t saying that.

    And we aren’t saying that Loughner is a teabagger, at least I’m not, and I don’t know of anybody who is. What we are saying, if you’d bother to try to listen, is that over the last 20 years, there has been a pattern of violent right-wing talk and writing. There just has. Most of it is not incitement in so mnay words, that’s true. And there isn’t one specific thing that anybody can point at and say, “That’s why Loughner did this.” It’s a pattern. A big pattern that goes back 20 years.

    When Limabaugh riffs on some variation of “Liberals are devious and evil, and want to enslave you!”, when Sara Palin puts up her bullseye map, when Beck rants about how Obama and the Democrats are somehow the spiritual heirs of Hitler, when Michelle Malkin writes in defense of interning Japanese people in World War II, when U.S. Senator Charles Grassley accuses the Democratic health insurance reform bill as somehow leading to “pulling the plug on Grandma,” when Coulter writes about how great it would be if somebody were to poison then Supreme Court Justice Stevens, when U.S. Senate Republican nominee Angle talks about “2nd Amendment remedies” if conservatives don’t get their way in the upcoming election, when Jonah Goldberg writes a book about how liberals are the real fascists, pretty much any time Mark Levin opens his mouth… Well, these things make up a pattern.

    There’s nothing comparable on the liberal side. Yes, random bloggers will write awful things. Yes, once in a while, some officeholder will say something dumb and scary. But there’s no pattern, and you just plain can’t say otherwise unless you’re stupid or you’re lying. We live in a country where for the last 20 years, violent, often eliminationist right-wing speech has washed over us without end.

    Now, I don’t know why this is. Part of it, maybe most of it, has just been expediency. Stoking people who are easily stoked to hatred can get them out to vote. There might be a few right-wing writers, pundits and even a few politicians who actively want to see our political system fall so they can put up some new one, one that they could far more easily and reliably dominate, but I don’t know that that’s true. I think most of these people have just latched onto this method as a quick, easy and dependable way to get lots of resentful and easily angered people to vote for them.

    But whatever the reason for this pattern of violent talk and writing, the result has been the same: ever growing bad feelings and suspicion. And Loughner is pretty much the inevitable outcome of 20 years of this bullshit. To be truthful, I’m kind of amazed it took this long. I’ve been saying for a year now that I fully expected to see a congressman shot, and now it’s happened.

    This guy Loughner is a nut. He has problems. Anybody can see that. To me, a layman, he seems awfully like a schizophrenic. And he’s just the result of 20 years of unending violent talk. I’d guess he wasn’t a regular Limbaugh listener, but he didn’t need to be for this climate to affect him. He’s been hearing–almost by osmosis at times, I’m sure, since it’s just part of the ambient noise of our lives now–his whole life about how dangerous and tyrannical the government is. He’s been hearing that liberals are dangerous and devious and evil, though my guess is that that didn’t affect him specifically. But other things seem to have, like the belief that the government is oppressive and that we have good reason to fear it. And after a while, he did something about it. It was inevitable. Not this particular Loughner, but a Loughner. It was bound to happen, it was going to happen, and now it has happened.

    The right has stoked all this fear and hatred. For 20 years. Now the only logical outcome of all this stoking has come to pass. You own this. Your side. Conservatives. Your side, your party has cynically played this game all this time, and now that what had to happen at last happened, conservatives want to tell us that it was all only a game, that you didn’t really ever mean any of it. It was all just in good fun, and besides, you liberals are worse. Well, that is just a transparent, pathetic lie. Conservatives played this game, and conservatives knew, or should have known, where it would lead. Conservatives can’t weasel out of it now. Conservatives are responsible. Not legally responsible, that’s true, but conservatives sure as hell are morally responsible. Be grownups and own up to what you’ve wrought. And then do something to change yourselves.

    You made this mess, now it’s up to you to clean it up. I think you’ll find that we liberals will be happy to lend a hand, but you’re going to have to begin treating us like we’re decent Americans if you want our help. Good luck.

  119. 119
    Keith G says:

    @Paul in KY: As I typed, I don’t want this to be an issue – just a passing notion. In the modern era, political assassins seem to like multiple shots on target (overkill) if conditions allow and here conditions did allow.

    One more thing for the FBI to ponder.

  120. 120
    Mnemosyne says:

    I see that our new troll Lorna is yet another person who can’t tell the difference between using the phrase “bringing a knife to a gun fight” and actually bringing a loaded gun to a political rally. More than once.

    It’s pretty sad that she’s more upset about a common phrase that people use than she is about the fact that her side keeps bringing actual loaded guns to political rallies. Apparently carrying a loaded weapon in public is totally normal, but using a phrase that’s at least 50 years old is out of bounds.

  121. 121
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne: Again, just a rather ghoulish side note as I have hashed over motivations. I’m sure people better than I will take this up.

  122. 122
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Keith G:

    In the modern era, political assassins seem to like multiple shots on target (overkill) if conditions allow and here conditions did allow.

    To me, that would make it more likely to be a political act, not less. If (as some people have posited) he was personally obsessed with Giffords, he probably would have gone for the overkill before he started shooting into the crowd.

    But he took her down with one bullet and then immediately started shooting other people who had come to a political rally for a Democrat. This really does seem more similar to something like the Knoxville Unitarian murders than a simple assassination.

    ETA: Obviously, I’m speculating, but a whole lot of the evidence does seem to point more towards a political motivation than a strictly personal one towards Giffords. I think it was probably a mix of both motives.

  123. 123
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Lorna: “Do you own a gun?”

    Not that it’s your business but no, I don’t own a gun. Nor do I believe in using violence to solve problems. I have a voice that works in conjunction with my brain. I know, you have problems understanding this but you need a fucking brain that works to be able to do so.

    “I think you should get some professional help. “

    You are not capable of thinking, that much is VERY clear. Go soak your sad sack of a tea bag and try again.

    Fucking git.

    Yes, I do cuss. Especially at fucking idiots like you. Why? Because I prefer to shoot my mouth off when I am sick and tired of reading or listening to stupid fucking people like you.

    That and nobody dies from it. Falling to a couch in a dead faint, maybe, but that’s all.

  124. 124
    El Cid says:

    @handy: I should have clarified that the trap I mentioned that whether or not Obama followed the Politicoists’ advice he’d be screwed meant that he’d be screwed in the eyes of those particular authors.

    My immediate point was that the authors were shallow morons whose advice to Obama would result in vehement criticism of Obama by those same authors, no matter how closely Obama attempted to abide by their advice.

    The screaming right of the nation, their own media sources, and the ‘center’ praising punditariat would be a different matter, seeing any act or lack of action by Obama as an example of his repressive, Kenyonesian anti-American hatred, and so on and so forth or as his failure to Bring Us All Together.

  125. 125
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Paul in KY:

    Your welcome? ;)

    I’d call it Whack-A-Mole but moles have brains that actually work. This is more like pissing on a fire.

  126. 126
    JohnR says:

    @Lorna:

    I am not the one on here with the foul language, insults and hateful speech.

    That’s actually a useful point, Lorna. My (formerly strongly liberal) mother, after a mere decade or so in the fever swamps of Fox-land, has decided that the Liberals are the problem, simply because all her neighbors are so polite and the screeching hippies are so rude and hateful. That she doesn’t actually know any screeching hippies (other than her children, who range in persuasion from fairly conservative to mildly liberal) hasn’t stopped her from forming this opinion. She seems to regard Malkin as a humorist, and doesn’t seem too aware of the general non-newspaper right-wing output. To her, Krauthammer is a fairly thoughtful writer who occasionally gets carried away, but doesn’t really mean it. Blacks are lazy, shiftless, greedy leeches and criminals (except the few “Good Blacks” she happens to know); Muslims are all rabid terrorists (except the few “Good Muslims” she happens to know); Christians are all nice, thoughtful, loving and tolerant people (except for the few “erring Christians” that she happens to know). Jon Stewart (whom she has never, to my knowledge, actually watched) is a mean-spirited, hateful comedian. This is why we are where we are. It’s bad enough that we like to filter the information we take in, but when it comes to us pre-filtered, then we’re in deep trouble.

  127. 127
    Lorna says:

    @Paul in KY: Lorna dear, Sarah! and Glen Beck have that little girl’s blood on their hands. They can wash & scrub & disinfect & lie & spin, but it doesn’t change the fact. They incited one of their wackos to kill a congresswoman

    You stated above the fact, where, where are you getting that fact?

    Paul, why do you continue to pull your head out of the sand? You are basing your accusations on what? What facts do you have that Jared Loughner was one of Beck and Palins? What proof do you have that he watch/listened/followed either of them. YOU HAVE NO PROOF, you deal in fiction…..you make up whatever fits your agenda. Please give us the facts where did this come out at and where can I find those facts? Your opinion is just that, your opinion….just becase you want something to be so doesn’t make it so!

    Probably won’t hear from you anymore………..unless you have something rabid to say about me.

  128. 128
    Lorna says:

    @JohnR: Oh, John such a good point! (sarcasm)

  129. 129
    Earl Butz says:

    If Laughner’s sole focus was to eliminate a political “leader” why the fuck did he only put one slug through (poor choice of bullets) Giffords’s noggin?

    @Keith G: Your bullshit hemming and hawing and insistence that we all play fair (when you’re dealing with people who will never play fair with you, you damn sure don’t give them the fucking benefit of the doubt, you imbecile) is both insulting and infuriating, but this really, really takes the cake.

    If I shoot you in the head with a 9mm bullet, you’re going to die. That this poor woman didn’t is as close to a “miracle” as anything I’m ever likely to acknowledge – however, you can be sure that she will curse the fate that allowed her to live through such an injury every remaining day of her life. She’ll never be OK again. She’s probably blind. She almost certainly will never walk again. She certainly sustained massive frontal lobe damage, and although she can comprehend words, she will have huge cognitive deficits for the rest of her life. Buy a book by Oliver Sacks, and read through the life story of James Brady (Reagan’s press secretary who survived a .22 to the head). Gunshot wounds to the head don’t have happy endings.

    And, lest you forget, there are six other people – including a federal judge who was on the right’s hit list – who he intended to kill, and did.

  130. 130
    SFAW says:

    What was Bob Beckel and the Dem. Congressional congess comittee YEARS before palins map, aiming at with their targets/bullseyes? Please do answer!

    Please do show us WTF you’re talking about. Was that (alleged) map of Beckel’s published on “fb” (as you so charmingly refer to it)? Anyplace on the Intertubez that has a viewership of more than 10 people?

    The only thing I’ve found was so innocuous that I almost laughed. You’re really stretching, but that’s all you wingnuts have left isn’t it? Drum up enough false equivalencies, and hope the media do your bidding, as they have for the last 10-20 years.

  131. 131
    Nutella says:

    Lorna-

    Let’s start with you.

    Sharron Angle recommended exactly what happened in Tucson when she said that the correct response to losing an election is ‘second amendment remedies’.

    Do you condemn her for saying that?

    Have you urged the Tea Party to repudiate her for saying that?

    Have you urged the Republican Party to repudiate her for saying that?

    You can start now. We’re waiting.

  132. 132
    JamesD says:

    @Kryptik:

    I was under the assumption that most of you guys were blaming Palin for the perps actions so I was playing devil’s advocate by providing words that only came from Obama since “eemom” envisioned that if the nut had Palin references on his wall it would be discounted by the right and what if instead he had Obama’s rhetoric as fuel, would it still be Palin’s fault (or Obama’s?)

    Then you reply with quotes from non-politicians (besides the Bachman one) and I believe I could come up with much more hateful, angry and violent words and pictures from the left wing so I don’t grasp your point.

    The bottom line is the perp is certifiably mentally ill and his rants are across the political board and it appears he has been fixated on the congresswoman for years just because she did not give him a proper answer to his nonsensical question.

    This very sad situation was not caused by talking points from the left or right. It is just fodder being used by the left that will come back to harm their credibility over time.

    Lastly, when you read some of the replies within this thread, I don’t think the left can claim the high road on mutual respect and civility as the name calling and insults seem to flow quite easily for some.

  133. 133

    I’m skeptical that a conservative would be able to make a video like this showing left wing individuals making the same type of inflammatory comments :

    The Consequences Of Vitriolic Rhetoric

  134. 134
    handy says:

    My immediate point was that the authors were shallow morons whose advice to Obama would result in vehement criticism of Obama by those same authors, no matter how closely Obama attempted to abide by their advice.

    The headlines would write themselves:
    Has Obama Gone Too Far?
    The Post-Partisan President Who Injects Partisanship Into A National Tragedy: Change We Can’t Believe In

  135. 135
    Lorna says:

    @Original Lee: I can only refer you to my post 107.

  136. 136
    Ross Hershberger says:

    @Lorna:

    Of course there isn’t any proof, and if there was it would be explained away or ignored.

    The right uses and will continue to use violent imagery to motivate because it’s working for them and they’re too lazy to find another way. Why give up a good tactic when the few unfortunate deaths can merely be explained away as not proven to be their fault?

  137. 137
    JohnR says:

    @Lorna:

    Why thank you, Lorna! Coming from you, that means so much more to me! I’m glad you’re not just interested in making cheap points about how bad your enemies are. Such a refreshing change here. I hope you hang around a good, long time! Incidentally, using a “sarcasm” tag is so juvenile, don’t you think?

  138. 138
    JamesD says:

    @Nutella:

    Nutella, Sharron Angle NEVER said “the correct response to losing an election is “second amendment remidies”. Where did you come up with that falsehood?

    Here is the trasncript so you can educate yourself.

    Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…

    Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

    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.

    Hopefully you are not still waiting On Lorna. :P

  139. 139
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Lorna: “Paul, why do you continue to pull your head out of the sand?”

    Yeah Paul, why aren’t you burying your head in the sand with Lorna?

    Like I said, she’s a fucking idiot.

    Time to go do something productive and finish the GM SoundFont I am putting together for my wife to use with her violin practice.

    You can only piss on a fire so long before you run out of piss. Time to refill for the next round. :)

  140. 140
    Ash Can says:

    @Lorna: If what you say here can be believed — and that’s a big “if” — then you’re already sitting on a veritable mountain of facts, having read through this blog and its posts. There isn’t a single fact I could possibly give you that you wouldn’t dismiss, because you’ve already convinced yourself that the violent rhetoric from Republican and right-wing leaders is in no way connected to the Arizona shooting.

    But I’ll drop a few facts here anyway — not for your benefit, since I know full well they’ll be lost on you, but for others’:

    It’s not liberals who support programs that make it more costly and difficult for the mentally ill to receive the treatment they need.

    It’s not liberals who eliminate laws that keep guns out of the hands of people who are incapable of using them correctly.

    It’s not liberals who are in favor of bringing loaded firearms to political gatherings.

    It’s not liberals who believe and admire prominent media personalities who make their livelihoods sowing and nurturing hatred of other Americans and of the government that we all have in common.

    It’s not liberals who cite violence as a legitimate remedy to electoral outcomes favorable to political opponents.

    It’s not liberals who threaten to shoot people carrying out activities mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

    It’s not liberals who start wars, deny life-saving health care, threaten the nation’s future by undermining education, or threaten everyone’s future by ravaging the environment.

    And, as we saw more than once over the weekend, it’s not liberals who refuse to acknowledge that inflammatory speech has consequences.

  141. 141
    Geeno says:

    I just have to ask the apologists. So how many deaths would constitute enough of a pattern for you? Just how many do you want to see die, before you’re willing to say that things DO need to be tamped down?
    Will any number be sufficient?

  142. 142
    General Stuck says:

    It is obvious that Giffords was specifically targeted in this shooting. it is not yet known that it was specifically a partisan attack by someone capable of discerning ideology with rational thought, or if motivations came directly from right wing hate speech.

    but it is utterly laughable, to deny the recent and current high level of violent themed pol speech is almost entirely within the purview of the right wing of the ideological spectrum. And the only people who doubt this in any way are the tea tard nutjobs and other wingnuts propagating this speech. While it so far doesn’t not seem to have a direct impact of Loughner’s actions, you would have to be a complete knuckle dragging fool to deny it likely had some effect, and has been solely responsible for creating the current atmosphere of violent overtones in our pol dialogue . Malkin photoshopped images of John Mccain with a milk mustache not withstanding.

  143. 143
    Kryptik says:

    @JamesD:

    Then you reply with quotes from non-politicians (besides the Bachman one) and I believe I could come up with much more hateful, angry and violent words and pictures from the left wing so I don’t grasp your point.

    Non-politicians? The quotes were from, in order, Sharron Angle (you know, the person who was supposed to beat Reid for a Senate seat?), Michelle Bachmann, Allen West (who won his election), and Joyce Kaufmann, radio host who WAS to serve as Allen West’s chief of staff before controversy over that exact quote possibly prompting a threat of violence in Florida schools pushed her out, and both West and Kaufmann made it all about the ‘evil hateful lefties’.

    Lastly, when you read some of the replies within this thread, I don’t think the left can claim the high road on mutual respect and civility as the name calling and insults seem to flow quite easily for some.

    See, the point here isn’t precisely about civility or namecalling. It’s about explicit and implicit threats of violence in rhetoric. You can be insulting and dismissive without implying violence, and you can imply violence without it being couched in insults and such. That’s what people are talking about, the tendency toward violent speech and implications of violence against political opponents, and in that case, the right is far more guilty of that matter than the left.

  144. 144
    SFAW says:

    Yes, JamesD, you’re absolutely right, because there was ABSOLUTELY NO hint nor implication that the Second Amendment remedies would be the alternative if the “Harry Reid problem” didn’t get cured by the vote.

    And “states’ rights”, from the mouths of segregationists, had nothing to do with segregation.

  145. 145

    @JamesD:

    Dumbfuck: You don’t need to say something in so many words to say it. I know what she was saying; so does anybody who listens to her and interprets what she said in good faith. Demanding that we take what she said word for word and that we interpret each word literally on its own is not good faith.

  146. 146
    John Thacker says:

    “That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski [(D-PA)] 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.”

    So, there’s that from the former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, Paul Kanjorski (D-PA).

  147. 147
    Geeno says:

    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.

    I hate to say this, but that IS an endorsement for assassinating Harry Reid should he win the election.
    Reading comprehension FTW!

  148. 148
    SFAW says:

    Ash Can –

    You left out one:

    But it IS liberals who end up cleaning up the mess that conservatives make

    And it IS liberals who get blamed for trying to clean up the conservative-made mess before it gets too big.

    OK, two. So sue me

  149. 149
    Lorna says:

    @Nutella: Nutella, I really didn’t like Sharon Angle as a candidate. I also don’t live in Nevada. Her comment though I have not heard for myself, but will take your word on what she has said is idiotic and repulsive. I do however believe in the right to bear arms…….as did congresswoman Giffords.

    I am not a member of the tea party nor I have never been to a tea party event/gathering.

    I am actually not even very political. I do however remember something over the summer that the tea party was repudiating racist signs……but you can’t even say that the people holding the signs at an open gathering were part of the tea party!

    What I am saying is I think that trying to lay the blame on anybody but Jared Loughner for political gain is sickening!

    Who said I was a Republican……..have you urged the Republican Party to repudiate her? I am waiting too.

  150. 150
    Geeno says:

    @John Thacker: Yay! Someone found one!
    It does have to be said, he’s riffing on the banksters, not really a mere political opponent.

  151. 151
    El Cid says:

    @JamesD:

    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.

    This is fucking different?

    I “hope” we’re not “getting to Second Amendment remedies”?

    How is this different than a Malcolm X ‘ballot or bullet’ speech? I mean, other than that blacks really were a repressed group subject to lawless oppression by government forces, unlike Republicans and Teatards?

    What the fuck else could be meant by “I hope the vote will be the cure”? It can only mean, in any sane interpretation, that a failure to electorally ‘cure the Harry Reid problems’ by unelecting him would likely provoke the use of firearms by those who opposed Harry Reid.

    Trying to spin that as something else, that she’s just cautioning her audience about a likely probability, is just pathetic.

    It’s like the sorts of things shoplifters say when they get caught, like they were just taking it out to their car to get the money so that no one else could take the last one. Or whatever stupid nonsense they come up with.

  152. 152
    Earl Butz says:

    @Lorna: We’ve seen an amazing influx of newbies to this blog ever since the shootings. They all are defending Sarah! and her targets, and Beck and his ravings, and wingnutland in general, and insisting that there is no way that they could be responsible for this atrocity. And you and your ilk are doing it all over the blogosphere.

    I don’t even feel a need to comment to most of them, but will say something to you for all of your kind to read:

    Your screaming about this tells us all that we were right. To use an old saying, we obviously hit a nerve.

    You can’t defend against that. I’m not going to argue with you, or defend my position, or anything of the sort. I don’t need to. Your actions and words prove me right.

    Keep screaming.

  153. 153

    @John Thacker:

    Fair enough. Bad quote. Nobody should say things like that publicly. It turns out he didn’t say it on television or radio or write it in an op-ed, but rather said it in a meeting with a newspaper editorial board. So, while dumb and inexcusable, it wasn’t meant for publication, though he surely should have known that the quote would come out.

    But again, as bad as that is, it doesn’t make a pattern. There’s no pattern of liberals saying and writing violent, eliminationist things. You can give us Kanjorski’s dumb words and once Obama said something about bringing a gun to a knife fight. And some crazy blogger a few years ago threatened some prominent conservative’s family. And Ward Churchill said something dumb 8 or 9 years ago. That doesn’t make a pattern.

  154. 154
    Nutella says:

    @JamesD:

    If you think that is not a clear call for violence, which it is, you’re forgetting this quote from Angle:

    You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
    __
    I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

    That clear enough for you?

    So, JamesD and Lorna, do you or do you not condemn this call to shoot political opponents?

  155. 155
    Geeno says:

    but you can’t even say that the people holding the signs at an open gathering were part of the tea party!

    Yet, oddly, they kept showing up at one Tea Party gathering after another.
    While I myself have no soap-box from which to call for the republicans to repudiate one of their own, I do recall seeing a number of calls for the republicans to do exactly that when she first said it. None of them penetrated the narrative.

  156. 156
    bemused says:

    I think we should give a smidge of benefit of doubt to Lorna & the others who believe that only the right is getting heat on violent rhetoric and that the left is using it for political reasons. Lorna and those who feel the same may have already been telling friends, family using that kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and unacceptable. They may have been voicing their objections facebook friends who love Beck saying he’d like to murder Michael Moore, O’Reilly calling Dr. Tiller a baby killer, Rush talk of killing liberals or called people running for office who put images of their opponents on targets at shooting range fundraisers or written letters to their local papers against the use of violent/hate images and speech for political reasons. They had to have been doing their part to counter this disgusting behavior on the right or they would look like hypocritical asses coming here to lecture. Right?
    Who the hell is Bob Beckel anyway? Oh, I see…looked him up…another Fox pretend liberal.

  157. 157
    Lorna says:

    @Nutella: well, I guess I never heard that out of Angle because she didn’t say it…………Nutella I would like to know what JamesD wants to know….where did you get your information?

    Nutella, Sharron Angle NEVER said “the correct response to losing an election is “second amendment remidies”. Where did you come up with that falsehood?

    Here is the trasncript so you can educate yourself.

    Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…

    Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

    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.

    Here is a prime example of misinformation being spread by Nutella! Unreal!

  158. 158
    Chris says:

    Ah, finally.

    For KeithG and others; Four paragraph take on GOP’s responsibility here = @Chris:

  159. 159
    PS says:

    @Earl Butz: Yes. I agree that there is a level of desperation in the comments coming from those who are denying any connection between the shooting and the levels of rhetoric (almost entirely on the right wing, especially if you limit it to people in positions of authority).

    I don’t endorse the “keep screaming” (though I understand it), only because I am hoping for some reflection and introspection.

    I know, I know.

  160. 160
    SFAW says:

    …….as did congresswoman Giffords.

    And your point is … ?

    I am not a member of the tea party nor I have never been to a tea party event/gathering.

    Yes, and members of the Nazi Party were only about 10% of the German population.

    I do however remember something over the summer that the tea party was repudiating racist signs……but you can’t even say that the people holding the signs at an open gathering were part of the tea party!

    Actually, you can, but that would require more time than is available to dredge up stuff to show you. And, as with some political movements, you don’t have to be a Partei member to take part in their “good works”.

    Who said I was a Republican…

    If you’re not, you’re doing a great impression of one. Do you play one on TV?

    …..have you urged the Republican Party to repudiate her?

    Yes, but do you seriously think they will? Well, I guess they might after Rupert Murdoch tells them to.

  161. 161
    PS says:

    @Lorna: Reading comprehension fail.

  162. 162
    JamesD says:

    @Earl Butz:

    “And, lest you forget, there are six other people – including a federal judge who was on the right’s hit list – who he intended to kill, and did.”

    Such complete rubbish. The judge was a conservative, appointed by Bush the elder and the perp had no idea the judge would be there.

    Some of you posters here are truly downright delusional with your hatred for the right.

  163. 163

    @Lorna:

    I’ll say it again: When your “defense” is that we aren’t reading the quote literally enough, and we interpret the quote as a whole, rather than as a series of narrowly defined individual words, each of which has no relation to any of the others–and yes, I’m exaggerating for effect–then you’re losing the argument. If you don’t see an implicit threat in her words, then you aren’t reading it in good faith.

  164. 164
    bjacques says:

    I think we’re all forgetting that Matt Taibbi said “fuck” in an online debate. The left are a veritable Weather Underground when it comes to tossing F-bombs. Also, Bill Ayers. Too.

    I wish Loughner *had* gotten his inspiration from violent left-wing rhetoric. Six people would be alive today and a dazed Rep. Gifford would be brushing dicks out of her hair and wondering where Loughner got a whole bag of them.

    I guess then the target would have been someone like Sen. McCain, but you get the idea.

  165. 165
    Chris says:

    @SFAW:

    I do however remember something over the summer that the tea party was repudiating racist signs……

    Not quite. As I recall from PJM’s article, what they actually said was “stop left wing infiltrators from discrediting us with racist signs.” They’re incapable of taking personal responsibility on every single level.

  166. 166
    JamesD says:

    @Nutella:

    Ummm, that is not what she said – revising history is not a good idea.

  167. 167
    CircleSquared says:

    @Keith G: Actually, no. Challenging someone on their bad behavior is not the same thing as inciting other people to bad behavior shoot people that don’t agree with them.

  168. 168
    Keith G says:

    @Earl Butz: Hi Earl. Too many thing there to unpack, but just in passing:

    The thing about the number of bullets was just a passing thought, as I said, and as such certainly deserves the classification of bull shit specialization. The forensic psychologists of both sides will be taking a look if recent court cases can be used as a guide. I will gladly let them tackle it.

    Your bullshit hemming and hawing and insistence that we all play fair (when you’re dealing with people who will never play fair with you, you damn sure don’t give them the fucking benefit of the doubt, you imbecile)

    I am sorry, but I sorta like fair play. I expect it of them and I demand it of us. Now that doesn’t mean we play dead and just take it. It means we work like hell to gather evidence and make a case and we move heaven and earth to reach out to those who we can convince. And It means we keep at it. And we keep at it.

    Being morally right, being a force for good in a modern democracy, is not for sissies, and not for those who get all wobbly at the decay, inertia or the attacks of the other side.

    I believe the case can and should be made at this teachable moment our polity is in danger. The Right is stirring up hate and fear to critical levels. I am concerned that our credibility and this moment could well be lost if we spend so much time trying to tie this specific crime to the general problem. It is possible that some of you are unintentionally crying wolf and if those connections are not really there, then we all will suffer.

    If that makes me an imbecile, I can live with that.

  169. 169
    Paul in KY says:

    @Lorna: Hey stupid, he was worried about the currency & us not being on the gold standard, etc. etc.

    If that doesn’t shout ‘Glen Beck’, then you’re even denser than I thought (and I think you’re pretty fucking dense).

    Also, the congresswoman had a ‘D’ after her name. I haven’t seen Sarah! & her flying monkey brigade going after many R’s.

    Keep em coming though, you do seem to have a bit of clueless moxie.

  170. 170
    Kryptik says:

    @JamesD:

    And yet he received countless death threats because, despite being a Bush I appointee and ‘conservative’ ( I quote that because I actually have no idea about his personal politics or further rulings), he ended up ruling that a case brought by “illegal immigrants” could go through to a higher court, causing local talk radio to ratchet a hate campaign leading to death threats and requiring security detail for him and his family for a while. Other judges have been ‘blackballed’ from being considered proper conservatives for less.

  171. 171
    SFAW says:

    Actually, JamesD, she said exactly what Nutella wrote, if you bother to listen to the recording. (Yeah, I know, Lie-berals Photoshopped the recording, so it’s all bullshit.)

  172. 172
    CircleSquared says:

    @Lorna: Argumentum ad logicum. There’s no end to the fun you can have by erecting a scarecrow and then ranting at it.

  173. 173
    Paul in KY says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee: I had a cat once that pissed in the toaster. I do not recommend turning on a toaster after a cat has pissed in it.

  174. 174
    Nutella says:

    @JamesD:

    Sharron Angle has talked about second amendment remedies many times. This particular quote was from a year ago on a radio interview with Lars Larson, as quoted here.

    It is easily findable on Google and you really should try looking things up before you accuse people of lying.

    So, since Angle has very clearly recommended shooting political opponents, do you and Lorna condemn her for it?

    Do you urge all political parties she belongs to to repudiate her and her recommendations of violence?

  175. 175
    sfbevster says:

    Heavy metal causes teenage suicides. Hollywood movies corrupt our youth. The President of the United States can’t deliver a message to American schoolchildren about staying in school because they’ll all grow up to be socialists. We can’t even suggest that kids stop hating on gay people because it’ll turn them queer. But the Palins and Limbaughs of the world, they operate in a vacuum. Nobody’s influenced by their words, no sirree.

  176. 176
    brantl says:

    Dearest Lorna.

    You’ve got nothing meaningful to say; why don’t you stop saying it?

  177. 177
    SlyFox says:

    Former Republican U.S. Senate candidate of Nevada Sharron Angle.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvWamQv1jQ0

    All of what she said during the 2010 campaign.

  178. 178
    Keith G says:

    @CircleSquared: Sure challenge away and confront bad behavior and rhetoric as I do with my wingnut business associates.

    My statement that you replied to was about saying that the GOP “bear responsibility” for a mass murder.

    Different thing.

  179. 179
    Allan says:

    @batemapa:

    1) there isn’t any proof to support that is was a “political hit”

    Federal investigators found a letter in the safe of accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner thanking him for attending a “Congress on Your Corner” event hosted by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2007, alongside an envelope with handwritten notes that read “I planned ahead,” “my assassination” and “Giffords,” according to a federal complaint filed Sunday.

    Sorry, but that was so stupid it merited a response.

  180. 180
    Paul in KY says:

    @John Thacker: After due process, of course. You see, that’s the difference between the Left & Right, we want to execute the crooks after they’ve been tried & convicted. The Right just wants to murder.

  181. 181
    CircleSquared says:

    @Keith G: Psychology isn’t logical, but that doesn’t make it unreal.

    I don’t know if a logical proof is possible given what looks like reason to a disturbed mind. I do know this: if enough people work to make certain ideas acceptable, the outrage that should attend the idea fades. It’s like the ideation phase of suicide: you have to think of it first, then you have to give it words, and then you act.

    The phase, “no flake thinks it is responsible for the avalanche” also applies.

  182. 182
    SFAW says:

    After due process, of course. You see, that’s the difference between the Left & Right, we want to execute the crooks after they’ve been tried & convicted. The Right just wants to murder.

    One hopes you were being satirical.

  183. 183
    El Cid says:

    2nd Amendment remedies means using firearms as splints for broken arms, or gun cleaning cloths as bandages, or using solvent as a handy stain-removing aid, and so forth.

    You people are just interpreting everything the way you want to.

  184. 184
    batemapa says:

    @Allan: yeah god so stupid.

    my comment was in reference to someone saying that rush and the rest of them corrupted this individual with the intention of having someone kill a political figure, basically a assassination masterminded by the Right. that sort of “political hit” is not the same as a person killing a political figure. we still don’t know the circumstances he was operating under, and my point was there is no point jumping to the end all be all of conclusions right now, because we will probably get more facts in the future.

    still should denounce the violent rhetoric of course, because it only has the capacity to cause harm, not any good. i was just saying we don’t have the evidence to classify this as a “political hit” as the commenter defined it. don’t see what’s so stupid about waiting for some more/all the facts to come out before i totally make up my mind about the event

  185. 185
    Lorna says:

    @Ash Can: Ashcan, A reply to you is a waste of my time. I could say everything that you have said and put it in the context of the right, because it is your OPINION.
    I will just take on one of your statements.

    It’s not liberals who start wars,

    And I am sorry what was the Korean and Vietnam thingys…..weren’t they war? And who was the President during the Korean war? Wasn’t it Truman a Dem. and didn’t Dwight Eisenhower end the war….wait was he a Rep.? Vietnam….LBJ, WWI………Woodrow Wilson, WWII…….FDR so what were you saying about war?

  186. 186
    SFAW says:

    The phase, “no flake thinks it is responsible for the avalanche” also applies.

    Can we leave Bobo Asexual Douthat out of this, please?

    Ooops, wrong thread …

  187. 187

    You know what annoys me here?

    People are talking about violent rhetoric, but… there’s a woman who’s been shot.

    And who was famously the target of a gun sight. By someone who chose to lie “noooooo! It was a *surveyor’s symbol!*”

    That’s just poison mean. That’s just despicably, monstrously poisonous. I don’t *care* if the shooter never saw the picture; it doesn’t matter. Some awful person put a gun sight on someone you love, that person gets shot, and then, that awful person is more concerned about her own political scorecard than you.

    And rather than people thinking “do I want to have family and friends have to think about what nasty shit *I* said about someone they love, if that person gets shot – or, fuck, *hit by a frikkin’ CAR*?” they’re all “OH, you *EVIL* liberals, trying to SCORE POINTS!”

    Where’s the *humanity*? When do people stop and think about the real human beings involved here?

    Why are putting gun sights on political opponents so incredibly *important* to people that they won’t dial back the rhetoric, just so that, next time someone gets shot, they won’t know that X-famous-person or Y-famous-person made it look like that someone should be shot?

  188. 188
    Keith G says:

    @Lorna: I hope you have read my comments and therefore appreciate how I value a rational approach to dialogue.

    But I have my limits:

    your left wing progressive agenda is disintegrating before your eyes and you are grasping at whatever you can to try to save it. Shame on all of you!

    Why don’t you go back and suck more butter from Limbaugh’s puss filled ass?

    Too much? Please notice I did not engage in name calling.

  189. 189
    Nutella says:

    @Lorna:

    And I am sorry what was the Korean and Vietnam thingys…..weren’t they war? And who was the President during the Korean war? Wasn’t it Truman a Dem. and didn’t Dwight Eisenhower end the war….wait was he a Rep.? Vietnam….LBJ, WWI………Woodrow Wilson, WWII…….FDR so what were you saying about war?

    I am actually not even very political.

    Who said I was a Republican

    Getting your stories mixed up here, aren’t you?

  190. 190
    Lorna says:

    Sorry Ash can too many things to correct in your previous post. Don’t even get me started on global warming and the fear mongering going on there!

  191. 191
    handy says:

    @Lorna:

    Your retort to liberals don’t start wars is, FDR started WWII. Really?

  192. 192
    Paul in KY says:

    @SFAW: Sorta. I do think some people who stole the life savings of little old ladies & such should face the death penalty (in my own fantasy world). The death penalty in & of itself does not deter murderers (as they never think they’ll be caught or just don’t care). However, I personally think it could deter white collar criminals, who most definitely want to live to spend their ill gotten gains (and can after spending 10 years in the clink, under our current laws).

    I am on record as being more pro-death penalty than your average DFH.

  193. 193

    @PurpleGirl: they are doing just fine, thanks for asking. my mom is threatening to move to belize. i support it. i’d rather spend the holidays in belize than in the desert!

  194. 194

    @Lorna:

    All right. At this point, the only thing left to say to you is Fuck off! Just fuck off.

    I humbly suggest to the regulars here that we all just stop answering these assholes. They don’t argue in good faith. They coome here to stir things up and get us all hot and bothered and waste our time answering their brainless rantings. We’re never going to reach them and we ought to just give up trying.

    I suggest we just overlook their posts altogether, or, when something is just too egregious to overlook, just answer them with a hearty “Fuck off!”

    I’m guessing that if they get nothing but “Fuck off!”s or no answer at all from any of us, they’ll grow weary of gumming things up here and go somemwhere else.

  195. 195
    Lorna says:

    @Nutella: Nutella, you are not even making any sense! Nothing getting mixed up, just correcting mistakes……putting out the facts, I am sorry that I know my history. What are you talking about?

  196. 196
    SFAW says:

    And I am sorry what was the Korean and Vietnam thingys…..weren’t they war? And who was the President during the Korean war? Wasn’t it Truman a Dem. and didn’t Dwight Eisenhower end the war….wait was he a Rep.? Vietnam….LBJ, WWI………Woodrow Wilson, WWII…….FDR so what were you saying about war?

    Lorna –

    Your stupidity is becoming painful to behold.

    First of all, the phrase was “start wars”. In that light:

    Korea: South Korea was invaded by North Korea. The United Nations force, of which the USA was the key population, was the side opposing North Korea. It was not Truman who started the war
    WWII: I had forgotten that FDR ordered the December 5th, 1941 bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Yokohama, so I guess you’re right. (We’ll ignore, for the moment, that WWII actually started when Germany invaded Poland, because I don’t want to confuse you with facts.)
    WWI: Started in 1914, US entered in 1917

    You really have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, do you? I was willing to cut you a slight amount of slack regarding some of your TeaBagger beliefs, but you’ve shown yourself to be unworthy of even that tiny amount of slack.

  197. 197
    Paul in KY says:

    @Lorna: Certainly President Wilkie would have done the right thing & allied us with our Aryan relatives. Or we could have just sat it out & now whenever we traveled to another country, it would just be another province in the glorious Reich.

    Damn you Roosevelt!!

    Edit: This is fun!

  198. 198
    Mnemosyne says:

    @batemapa:

    my comment was in reference to someone saying that rush and the rest of them corrupted this individual with the intention of having someone kill a political figure, basically a assassination masterminded by the Right.

    I don’t think anyone’s saying that. What we are saying is that if you choose to walk down the street punching the air indiscriminately, eventually you are going to punch someone in the face. Claiming that you didn’t mean to punch that particular person so therefore what you were doing wasn’t dangerous at all is not an excuse.

    Republicans have been playing with matches and now they’re standing next to the forest fire saying, “It’s not my fault the forest decided to burn down. Maybe it decided to burn down on its own. Didja ever think of that? Huh?”

  199. 199
  200. 200
    Chris says:

    @LongHairedWeirdo:

    And who was famously the target of a gun sight. By someone who chose to lie “noooooo! It was a surveyor’s symbol!”

    What a bullshit line. They were fucking bullseyes. All she had to do is say so and then say “but it’s a figure of speech, just like Obama’s ‘gun/knife’ analogy.” But no. She had to go for the transparent bullshit.

    And rather than people thinking “do I want to have family and friends have to think about what nasty shit I said about someone they love, if that person gets shot – or, fuck, hit by a frikkin’ CAR?” they’re all “OH, you EVIL liberals, trying to SCORE POINTS!”

    That’s what made me really mad at them. Right from the outset, virtually every comment I read, whether on the blogosphere or on facebook and whether from pundits or individuals, was on the order of “oh noes we’ll get blamed for this!” One reason why I really don’t give a fuck whether it’s fair to blame them for this or not. They deserve the trouble.

    As you pointed out; people were shot and died. Regardless of their party affiliation, my sympathy here is being taken up by the victims and their families; not by some sickeningly self-pitying pundits and politicians who keep whining about how the real story is the mean liberals hurting their poow widdle feewings.

    It’s a microcosm of their reaction to the Iraq war; they didn’t give a damn that over a million Iraqis were killed as a result of the invasion, but they shreiked in outrage when Obama was perceived as apologizing for it.

  201. 201
  202. 202
  203. 203
    SFAW says:

    I am sorry that I know my history.

    Truer words were ever spoken.

  204. 204
    Lorna says:

    @Paul in KY: Again, taken out of context by someone on the left. A poster had stated that liberals didn’t start wars. I was just pointing out his mistake…..I never said if I was for or against the war. But you go ahead if it makes you feel better make a conclusion that is based in nothing!

  205. 205

    @Lorna:
    Fuck off.

    By the way, maybe somebody could get rid of 201. I don’t know why it showed up twice; I only hit the button once…

  206. 206
    ed drone says:

    @Chris:

    Interesting, though, that 1) mainstream Democrats usually try to tone down this craziness while mainstream Republicans usually egg it on, and 2) somehow, our crazies don’t usually cross the line into violence the way theirs do.

    And 3) we don’t run our crazies for state and national offices.

    Ed

  207. 207
    SFAW says:

    Thanks, I love it when rational debate makes some on the left irrational! Yes, lets not have discourse grounded in facts, lets just go hide! That is what I find the left does best.

    Your projection confirms that you’re a Republican.

    The phrase “grounded in facts” killed itself when it heard you utter it.

    “Rational debate” is not something that you’re on speaking terms with, to put it nicely.

    What it boils down to is this:
    You’re stupid, you get MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR facts wrong, and you have no self-awareness regarding how wrong or stupid you are.

    So, you’re either a Rethug or a TeaBagger, or you’re DougJarvus Green-Ellis-Banta-Cain-Welker-Gambolputty-of-Ulm playing parody troll. Since DougJarvus Green-Ellis-Banta-Cain-Welker-Gambolputty-of-Ulm would, by this time, be laughing so hard that he couldn’t type, I’m guessing that you really exist, and that you’re really as stupid as you appear.

    So have fun supporting Sarah! ! ! in 2012.

  208. 208
    Chris says:

    @Lorna:

    Exactly. You attempted to correct the claim that liberals don’t start wars.

    And your counter-examples were corrected in turn. Woodrow Wilson didn’t start World War One. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t start World War Two. Harry Truman didn’t start the Korean War. The only one you might have a point on is LBJ, which is more than arguable. Legally speaking, he did not; he only sent troops to help an allied government threatened by a foreign-backed insurgency.

    So why don’t we try that again, with you giving us a war that was started by a liberal?

  209. 209
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Lorna:

    A poster had stated that liberals didn’t start wars. I was just pointing out his mistake…..

    Emperor Hirohito was a liberal?

    That’s the weirdest interpretation of World War II I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot of weird ones.

  210. 210
    batemapa says:

    @Mnemosyne: i completely 100% agree with you. the shit the Right spews is/was bound to create violence somewhere eventually. i’m all for denouncing the violent rhetoric. but i’m not ready to get to this point:

    Rush and his ilk hate liberals, full stop. They would never do something like this and that’s why they egg on crazy people with their lies and distortions. They want shit like this to happen.

    if it turns out this guy was influence by the rhetoric, i’ll be the first acknowledge all the connections. all i’m trying to get across here is we still dont know for sure what this guys deal was. i acknowledge that it appears to be more than just mere coincidence between the Right’s message and this tragedy. but maybe it’s because i come from a judicial branch family, but i’m just not going to make a final judgment until there is a clearer picture of Loughner available

  211. 211
    SFAW says:

    Again, taken out of context by someone on the left. A poster had stated that liberals didn’t start wars. I was just pointing out his mistake…..I never said if I was for or against the war. But you go ahead if it makes you feel better make a conclusion that is based in nothing!

    You really don’t have a brain in your head, do you?

  212. 212
    ed drone says:

    @Chris:

    RE: Loona
    So why don’t we try that again, with you giving us a war that was started by a liberal?

    Well, Jeff Davis was a Democrat at the time! But, since he was fighting for states’ rights (and not to preserve African slavery — ignore what the Confederate constitution and all the secession proclamations actually said), perhaps Loona would not call him a “liberal.”

    Ed

  213. 213
    Lorna says:

    @handy: No handy…..read all the posts! REALLY! Put it back into context…….

  214. 214

    @ed drone:

    No, I feel sure that if she thought it would help prove her point, she’d call him a liberal.

    These people are like the idiots who say the Democratic Party is the racist party because Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were Democrats early in their careers. I saw where Ann Coulter wrote that once. She actually said the Republicans made them stop being racist when they switched! I don’t know, maybe Loona is really Ann Coulter…

  215. 215
    Felonious Wench says:

    @Lorna: Lorna, real quick question, easy yes or no. Are you comfortable and do you support the metaphors and language you hear from the Right wing that refers to guns, targets, taking people out, etc? Second amendments, liberals are coming for your guns, all of that.

    Does it bother you when you hear it on the Right? Because we deal with it when we hear it on the Left. We say “language like this has no place in debates on real issues.” That’s because a lot of us would rather just focus on more important things than stirring up emotions.

    Tell me that, and we can have a conversation. Otherwise, you’re just here to get some emotions out on a blog of people who don’t agree with you. That’s called “trolling.”

  216. 216
    SFAW says:

    No handy…..read all the posts! REALLY! Put it back into context…….

    Yes, and the context merely highlights what an imbecile you are.

    So, let’s recap:
    1) Your comments are error-filled
    2) People point out your errors
    3) You mumble something about context, said context showing yet again that you were wrong
    4) You display it as a badge of honor

    I’m sure the DSM-IV has a term for this, but I don’t know what it is. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

  217. 217
    JRon says:

    @Mnemosyne: Don’t you know that all foreign governments are “liberal”?

  218. 218
    Mnemosyne says:

    @batemapa:

    Here’s the thing, though — no one is ever going to be able to prove that a specific person wanted this to happen. There’s no memo floating around saying, “Hey, here’s an idea, let’s get people to kill Democrats!”

    The phrase I would use here is “depraved indifference.” They knew what would happen — they knew what had already happened thanks to their rantings — and they just don’t care. I don’t know if that’s because they have a secret plan to kill Democrats, or if they’re able to rationalize away the whole spate of killings in the last two years, or what, but a normal person would have figured out by now that eliminationist talk is a bad idea because some crazy people will hear, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

    In a way, I understand why some people want to think it’s part of a plan because that way at least someone is at the controls, even if it’s someone evil. I think it’s more likely to be what it looks like: a bunch of assholes who never have to face any consequences constantly trying to top each other with no regard for what could happen.

  219. 219
    JRon says:

    abl, thanks for that insurrection timeline. wow.

  220. 220
    Paul in KY says:

    @Lorna: You teed it up & I couldn’t resist (hee, hee)

  221. 221
    Lorna says:

    @SFAW:

    It’s not liberals who start wars,

    What does this statement imply? I was just stating the fact that when war was entered into these wars had a Democratic President making the decision to go to war. You are all correct, I misstated. I meant when war started, not that they started them. Ohhh you all got me now!
    Wow!!!! Big points for you! I am sure that you all know what I meant….just more of that hate that never leads to violence from the left.

  222. 222
    Paul in KY says:

    @Felonious Wench: Oh come on…I’m not finished playing with her.

  223. 223
    SFAW says:

    “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

    That was said by some liberal, wasn’t it? Henry Dooziem or someone?

  224. 224
  225. 225
    eemom says:

    this troll Lorna bears an eerie resemblance to a wingnut I was arguing with last week on my cousin’s FB page.

    Amazing how they all sound the same, think the same, and structure their sentences with the same oblivion to grammar and punctuation.

  226. 226
    Felonious Wench says:

    @Paul in KY:

    Oh come on…I’m not finished playing with her.

    Well then, good sir, do carry on…

  227. 227
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Lorna:

    I meant when war started, not that they started them. Ohhh you all got me now!

    And yet I have a feeling that you still will never understand the difference between FDR declaring war on Japan after they attacked us and Bush II invading Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts. It’s already clear that you don’t understand the moral difference between someone who attacks and someone who defends against an attack.

  228. 228
    Lorna says:

    @SFAW: Wrong again, but thats okay we can still play your game.

  229. 229
    handy says:

    ….just more of that hate that never leads to violence from the left.

    What typically is the target of the left’s “hate” as you call it, and what can that inform us about the hate from the right and the state of political discourse today?

  230. 230
    mclaren says:

    ABL is exactly right to keep hammering away at this point. The pundits and the media want to shy away from the context in which this kind of violence occurs, and they should not be allowed to get away with it.

    Common human decency matters.

    You see, this is the kind of thing that happens when common human decency goes away in public discourse.

    It happened in 1917 in Russia. One side of the political debate got called subhuman, creeping reptiles, rats, insects, vermin, a cancer that had to be cut out. And when year after year after year of that shit goes on, it has an effect. People start to frame their opponents as literally subhuman. So we send ’em to gulags, so we use show trials, so we torture ’em into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. So what? They’re vermin.

    People are impressionable. If you keep pounding away and pounding away at the claim that some group of people, gypsies, gays, Jews, people who wear eyeglasses in Pol Pot’s glorious Year Zero, kulaks in Stalin’s Russia, aren’t actually human and don’t deserve to live and must be exterminated and have to be cut out of the body politic like a disease, well, after years and years of that stuff, it has an effect on the way people think and act.

    If you don’t believe that, take a look at how new soldiers are trained today in the army and marine corps. Human-shaped targets pop up and the soldiers get trained to shoot ’em down. The targets are just silhouettes at first. This acclimates the soldiers to shooting outlines that look vaguely human. Then more and more realistic targets are gradually introduced. Eventually the troops get sent on live-fire exercises with blanks against other U.S. marines dressed as the opposition. And by that time, it’s no problem to shoot at real live people. People the troops have been desensitized. They don’t view the enemy as human.

    Same deal here. When the political opposition gets dehumanized, well, hey! Who cares if a few of the vermin get wiped out? It’s the political equivalent of the Orkin Man — getting rid of pests.

    You go down that road and the destination at which you arrive is a very dark and ugly one. It’s got gulags and crematoria at the end of that road. We need to keep pointing that out. Common human decency matters. There’s a very thin veneer of civilization that keeps us from ripping one anothers’ hearts out and tossing ’em on the barbecues. It was not that long ago, historically speaking, that the Aztecs were cutting open their children’s chests and offering infants’ beating hearts to imaginary gods.

  231. 231
    JRon says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    think it’s more likely to be what it looks like: a bunch of assholes who never have to face any consequences constantly trying to top each other with no regard for what could happen.

    I think that’s right. I remember during the prez campaign reading a great column by Jan Crawford on the gop’s lack of awareness of our country’s past and how easy it could be to rile up the right into violence, based on Sarah Palin and John McCain’s comments. I thought then, and still think, that they just have no clue, and don’t have a grasp of what they were playing with. (Here’s the only reference to it I can find now).

    Beck, on the other hand, is in a whole different league.

  232. 232
    SFAW says:

    You are all correct, I misstated. I meant when war started, not that they started them. Ohhh you all got me now!
    Wow! Big points for you! I am sure that you all know what I meant….just more of that hate that never leads to violence from the left.

    Lorna –

    Look, you can try to rewrite your own comments, and in your delusional state, you can keep telling yourself that you meant something else, but, as the saying goes: “That shit don’t fly”.

    You’re not only stupid, but you’re intellectually dishonest, which is probably worse. But there’s a home for that behavior! Fortunately for us, it’s in the Right Wing, so why don’t you toddle over to RedStoat and inflict yourself on them, so we can get back to having (sometimes) intelligent discussions.

  233. 233
    mclaren says:

    ABL is exactly right to keep hammering away at this point. The pundits and the media want to shy away from the context in which this kind of violence occurs, and they should not be allowed to get away with it.

    Common human decency matters.

    You see, this is the kind of thing that happens when common human decency goes away in public discourse.

    It happened in 1917 in Russia. One side of the political debate got called subhuman, creeping reptiles, rats, insects, vermin, a cancer that had to be cut out. And when year after year after year of that shit-talk goes down, it has an effect. People start to frame their opponents as literally subhuman. So we send ’em to gulags, so we use show trials, so we torture ’em into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. So what? They’re vermin.

    People are impressionable. If you keep pounding away and pounding away at the claim that some group of politically designed hate objects, gypsies, gays, Jews, people who wear eyeglasses in Pol Pot’s glorious Year Zero, kulaks in Stalin’s Russia, aren’t actually human and don’t deserve to live and must be exterminated and have to be cut out of the body politic like a disease, well, after years and years of that stuff, it has an effect on the way people think and act.

    If you don’t believe that, take a look at how new soldiers are trained today in the army and marine corps. Human-shaped targets pop up and the soldiers get trained to shoot ’em down. The targets are just silhouettes at first. This acclimates the soldiers to shooting outlines that look vaguely human. Then more and more realistic targets are gradually introduced. Eventually the troops get sent on live-fire exercises with blanks against other U.S. marines dressed as the opposition. And by that time, it’s no problem to shoot at real live people. People the troops have been desensitized. They don’t view the enemy as human.

    Same deal here. When the political opposition gets dehumanized, well, hey! Who cares if a few of the vermin get wiped out? It’s the political equivalent of the Orkin Man — getting rid of pests.

    You go down that road and the destination at which you arrive is a very dark and ugly one. It’s got gulags and crematoria at the end of that road. We need to keep pointing that out. Common human decency matters. There’s a very thin veneer of civilization that keeps us from ripping one anothers’ hearts out and tossing ’em on the barbecues. It was not that long ago, historically speaking, that the Aztecs were cutting open their children’s chests and offering infants’ beating hearts to imaginary gods.

  234. 234
    Chris says:

    @Lorna:

    Just what DID you mean, honey?

    A person made a point that liberals don’t start wars. To begin hostilities is to start a war. To react to them once the other side has begun, is not. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

    That’s what the person you were attacking was saying; that liberal presidents do not start wars (he did not say that they don’t respond when another country starts one at our expense). You either misunderstood or chose to ignore what the person was saying. And now, it’s somehow our fault that you stuck your foot in your mouth. (Again).

    Personal responsibility isn’t really your thing either, is it?

  235. 235
    Paul in KY says:

    @Lorna: Our game is verbally dragging you around like my cat does a half dead mouse. What’s your game?

  236. 236
    SFAW says:

    Wrong again, but thats okay we can still play your game.

    I’ve been wrong plenty of times in the past, but definitely not about you, zipperhead.

  237. 237
    SFAW says:

    Our game is verbally dragging you around like my cat does a half dead mouse. What’s your game?

    Why are you insulting half-dead mice? What have they ever done to you?

  238. 238
    Felonious Wench says:

    @handy:

    What typically is the target of the left’s “hate” as you call it

    I hate it when my Prius gets under 50 mpg.

  239. 239
    Lorna says:

    @Felonious Wench:

    Lorna, real quick question, easy yes or no. Are you comfortable and do you support the metaphors and language you hear from the Right wing that refers to guns, targets, taking people out, etc? Second amendments, liberals are coming for your guns, all of that.

    Wench,

    Depends on the metaphors, as I am sure you will agree. Some are merely harmless, some could be taken different ways, so it depends. I believe the right has also made a statement to the same. I am not trying to stir up emotions. It does however bother me that this tragedy has been taken by some to use as shameful political blame. As I stated before, beck, palin and some others that this blog has accused are not to blame for this tragedy. Jared Loughner is. We have no proof that Jared Loughner listened to or watched any of these mentioned. Yet lots in the media and this blog are stating his actions were caused by “right wing”rhetoric. I was just asking for that proof. You can’t blame people and act like it is fact if you have no evidence of it. No matter how hard you try, Americans will not buy it.

  240. 240
    Paul in KY says:

    @SFAW: They conspire with the underpants gnomes. And they’re splitters from the PVRA (People’s Vole Resistance Army), or is it the VPRF?

  241. 241
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Paul in KY:

    I’ve been wondering where all of those mice with human brains went to. Now we know.

  242. 242
  243. 243
    Chris says:

    @Lorna:

    You can’t blame people and act like it is fact if you have no evidence of it. No matter how hard you try, Americans will not buy it.

    Why on earth not? 60-70% of them bought exactly that when we went to war with Iraq in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

  244. 244
  245. 245
    Lorna says:

    @Chris: No Chris what else was he implying? Come on you can do it! Well, yes, got it yet?

  246. 246
    SFAW says:

    Gotta love it:

    Felonious Wench: Simple question, yes or no, Lorna?
    Shorter Lorna: Splunge!

  247. 247
    Bender says:

    Y’all know where I stand on the Tucson shooting. Those who have used inflammatory rhetoric bear responsibility. The thing is, they know they bear responsibility.

    Why would they? Because you say so? (Cue OchoCinco: “Child, please.”) Sorry, that’s just not good enough — the leftist/State Media narrative has been rejected by all but 32% of people polled (only 42% of the Dems polled said this tragedy had anything to do with today’s “political tone”).

    Where’s the evidence that this lunatic ever read or saw anything in the remotest bit inflammatory, said by the left or the right? Why assume he was influenced by something he might not have even experienced? Because it fits the narrative, that’s why…

    You know, many elected officials were assassinated before Beck even had a show. How could that have happened? Did you hear that Reagan was shot?

    What there is ample, ample, ample evidence of is that he was a complete nutter, going back even before Sarah Palin and her mind-control helmet commanded her followers to destroy entire Congressional districts, or before DailyKos put a “bull’s eye” on Giffords or said she was “DEAD to me!”

    It’s over. Give it a rest.

    As for Waldman, he tips his deceitful hand right off the bat by deliberately lying about what Sharron Angle said. Why couldn’t he just print her quote? Hmmm…

    And funny how he can’t seem to recall Olbermann (as popular as a lefty host can get, I suppose) calling Bush a fascist (which by his own rule, is “implicitly inciting violence”). It took me one second to remember that, but somehow Waldman just can’t recall anything like it ever happening — he probably doesn’t recall Rep. Keith Ellison likening Bush to Hitler, acquiring unlimited power after 9-11/the Reichstag Fire, or Rep. Adler calling the Tea Party “fascist,” or George Soros or MoveOn.org or Ted Rall or Scott Ritter likening Bush to the Nazis. Or how about Jack Cafferty reading an e-mail on CNN that Bush should be overthrown by “revolution?”

    There, that took a couple of minutes to recall. I’m sure there are dozens more examples from the Bush years. But Waldman can’t remember a single one. That is quite odd, unless Waldman is a completely ignora— ooooooooh, now I understand.

  248. 248
    SFAW says:

    No Chris what else was he implying? Come on you can do it! Well, yes, got it yet?

    Lorna –

    It’s really hilarious when you call other persons’ intelligence into question.

  249. 249
  250. 250
    Chris says:

    @SFAW:

    Translation for non-Python watchers;

    Splunge: it means it’s a great idea! But possibly not! And I’m not being indecisive!

  251. 251
  252. 252
    Chris says:

    @Lorna:

    Please, enlighten me. What else was he “implying”?

  253. 253
    Lorna says:

    @Chris:

    Why on earth not?

    So you are admitting that you have no proof. Nice.

  254. 254
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Lorna:

    And I am sorry what was the Korean and Vietnam thingys…..weren’t they war? And who was the President during the Korean war? Wasn’t it Truman a Dem. and didn’t Dwight Eisenhower end the war….wait was he a Rep.? Vietnam….LBJ, WWI………Woodrow Wilson, WWII…….FDR so what were you saying about war?
    Reply

    Because someone is wrong on the internet: Eisenhower put the first “advisors” in Vietnam. The Korean war has not ended yet. Yes, LBJ was an idiot about Vietnam, he should have pulled out when he took over. I do believe though, that a Yugoslav national started WWI, and the Germans and Japanese started WWII.

  255. 255
    Lorna says:

    @Chris:

    Please, enlighten me.

    Really. I do not have all day.

  256. 256
    Chris says:

    @Lorna:

    Not at all. You said that the American people wouldn’t buy something because there was no proof of it; I’m pointing out that it’s never stopped them before.

    When competing for the message war, “proof” is unfortunately quite irrelevant.

  257. 257
    SFAW says:

    So you are admitting that you have no proof. Nice.

    You really need to go back to third grade, your reading comprehension is appalling.

  258. 258
    Nutella says:

    @Lorna:

    OK, Lorna has answered the simple question. She thinks Sharron Angle and Sarah Palin and everyone else who has been pushing violence should continue to do so.

    Because leftists are blamers, that’s why.

  259. 259
    Lorna says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): Already gone over, don’t have the time. You’ll have to read the prior posts.

  260. 260
    handy says:

    @Lorna:

    Your reading just fails.

  261. 261
    SFAW says:

    Really. I do not have all day.

    Actually, you apparently do. Unfortunately, it will take much longer than a day for you to get a clue.

  262. 262
    Chris says:

    @Lorna:

    Yes you do, honey. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t have been trolling here since this morning trying to hold a conversation with people who clearly are not going to agree with you and furthermore want nothing to do with you.

    You have time to troll but no time to provide evidence to back up the trolling? Odd way to manage your time.

  263. 263
    Lorna says:

    @Nutella: Nutella, not what I said and you are a prime example of what is wrong with the left…..you mislead, where in any of my post have I stated your comments? So, don’t lie about what I have said.

  264. 264
    handy says:

    @Lorna:

    You’ve been going back and forth on just this thread alone now for several hours and your retort to someone asking for a decent argument is, “I don’t have all day.” The hits just keep on coming from you.

  265. 265
    SFAW says:

    Already gone over, don’t have the time. You’ll have to read the prior posts.

    Why should (s)he? You apparently don’t read your own – nor anyone else’s. Well, I guess you may read them, you just don’t understand them.

  266. 266
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Lorna: Then why do you repeat yourself?

  267. 267
    SFAW says:

    One wonders if Lorna, like TigerHork, is one of those who talks about Going Galt! , and letting the moochers et al. suffer.

    Because we all know that TigerHork alone works 183 hours per week, is the most productive human being since Creation, etc. etc.

    Lorna may be his love slave soul mate.

  268. 268

    @Keith G: oh for frakk’s sake. he shot her point blank in the head!

  269. 269
    Lorna says:

    @Chris: Actually I found this website when I googled something the other day. Started reading the posts and was shocked at all of the hate and BS that was being put out as fact. So that is actually how and why I am here. You all are examples that if you have a difference of opinion as I do, you can’t engage in a back and forth debate of facts, and soon after the name calling begins and the one syllable words. I have just stayed for the futile fun of it. You have all shown me there isn’t any rational thought or facts that go into your posts. The most you do is copy and paste from a liberal blog or article. All OPINION. No research, no facts, no neutral websites. Just fun, thats all……….and who is the mouse?

  270. 270
    SFAW says:

    ABL –

    Save your self some typing, it’s been discussed extensively already.

    And to save you even more: “Lorna” is as clueless as they come, you’ll only raise your BP reading her stuff. (Unless you choose to view her stuff as the jokes they are.)

  271. 271
    SFAW says:

    Lorna –

    What company do you work for? Because I want to short their stock in a major way.

    Thx

  272. 272

    Lorna has simply picked up the Palin talking points and dumped them here. It’s not surprising.

    The notion that people are asking that the right-wing leaders and talking heads tone down the gun rhetoric because “our progressive agenda is failing” is patently absurd.

    If our agenda is failing, why are the Republican crapping themselves trying to figure out which of Obama’s policies to undo first?

    Tell us true, where did you copy that post from?

    Also, too, I think “Sarah!” should be a new tag.

    But you have to say it like “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalt!”

  273. 273
    Lorna says:

    @SFAW: Aren’t you getting the hint yet? Are you that dense? Reply to everyone but you……….

  274. 274

    @SFAW: I’m making my way through the thread. I find Lorna’s mind-ramblings amusing, especially since I’m fairly certain she’s just blog dumping.

    Sarah!

  275. 275
  276. 276
    Lorna says:

    @Angry Black Lady: Yea, okay Angry Black Lady…..what does your name mean….why are you so angry?

  277. 277
    Lorna says:

    @Mumphrey (formerly Renfrew Squeevil (formerly Mumphrey Oddison Yamm (formerly Mumphrey O. Yamm (formerly Mumphrey)))): The lefts answer to everything and apparently the only thing you know how to say.

  278. 278
  279. 279

    “I challenge any one of you you nitwits in the comment section*** to come up with a list of liberal offenses scarier than this list of right-wing offenses (from Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)”

    So either the left has a worse problem with violently acting out than the right or it has none at all? To the best of my knowledge none of us “nitwits in the comment section” has claimed the left is *worse* about this, so congratulations on setting up a challenge you’re guaranteed to win based on the simple fact that nobody is claiming the thing you’re asking us to prove. “Some morons in the comments say that 1+1 is 2. I challenge them to prove that 2 is greater than 7!” Yeah, congrats. You win the contrived argument that’s setup for no other possible outcome.

    ETA: Maybe you’re referring to the outright trolls that’ve showed up rather than the, “Hey slow down, this isn’t an issue that can be blamed entirely on the right” people. If that’s the case then what you’re saying makes a little more sense, but maybe you could be troubled to provide some additional words explaining wtf you’re talking about rather than expecting people to read your mind and/or click over to your website to see what you’re being subjected to.

  280. 280

    @Mumphrey (formerly Renfrew Squeevil (formerly Mumphrey Oddison Yamm (formerly Mumphrey O. Yamm (formerly Mumphrey)))): Co-sign.

    As I was listening to people saying “we don’t know that he listened to X or read Y,” I was reminded of the McVeigh special that MSNBC aired which relayed McVeigh’s anti-government sentiment, his anger at Ruby Ridge and Waco. I find it hard to believe given what little we do know about him that anyone could think this he just up and decided to go to a political rally and shoot this woman in the head.

    Occam’s Razor, people.

    Even if you do not believe that the O’Palinbeckbaughs bear responsibility, I find it stunning that people would rather take the “wait and see” approach as opposed to the “I don’t know, but maybe we could watch our fucking mouths when while we wait and see” approach.

    Riddle me that.

  281. 281

    @johnny walker: dude, learn to read. the nitwits in the comment section remark was addressed to the nitwits in the comment section at MY blog.

  282. 282
    batemapa says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I think it’s more likely to be what it looks like: a bunch of assholes who never have to face any consequences constantly trying to top each other with no regard for what could happen.

    Totally agree with that^ and the dangerous consequences it can create.

    you’re right in saying that we may never know the Right’s intentions; whether it was a plan, or just a collective idiocy without consequences.

    BUT, we may get information from the accused that he was directly influenced by a specific dumbass/collection of dumbasses, and because of that he felt it was necessary to carry out the killings.

    still, i’m saying that in this specific instance we don’t have concrete proof (yet) that the assholes and the shooting are related. i wholeheartedly believe that we will get a clearer picture of this sicko’s motives as more info and evidence is compiled, and in my gut i think the two will be related. the authorities might already have that info, the public just isn’t aware of it yet. i’m not worried about it yet, because we are only 3 days after the fact. there’s no reason to scramble for answers. we can aggresively go after the Right for the shit they sling, and still understand that this case is not yet closed.

    i guess my point is that i think we will get a clearer picture in the future and that our suspicions will probably be confirmed. and until then, there is no reason to make jumps in logic.

    we should continue to ask tough questions, criticize, and gather information, while understanding that more information is bound to come. i think it’s safe to say the whole story has not been told yet.

  283. 283
    SFAW says:

    @SFAW: Aren’t you getting the hint yet? Are you that dense? Reply to everyone but you……….

    Projection again, Toots. Look in the mirror to see who’s the dense one, dimwit.

  284. 284
    Chris says:

    @Lorna:

    We’re glad to have boosted your ego, Lorna.

    Once again with feeling. What was he “implying” when he said that liberals don’t start wars? You’ve had your argument shredded into Parmesan, and now your only defense left is to allude to some dark hidden meaning that it’s somehow beneath you to reveal?

    You’re fucking pathetic.

  285. 285
    Felonious Wench says:

    @SFAW:

    Shorter Lorna: Splunge!

    It’s not really something I have to think about. A person in a leadership position or an influential position should be aware how many people are listening and not use those metaphors, lest they be misconstrued.

    As a VP, I’m free start rumors a competing VP is going to be a target of an “investigation.” I’d get fired for that. If a jr. employee did it, they’d be ignored or given a talk. I am the one in a position of power, and what I say matters. It has consequences.

    People in a position of power have a responsibility to the public, period. They’re not the same as you and me. Whether on the right or left, when we violate that responsibility, we need to be called out on it, and it should be from the people on “the same side.”

    The left tends to call each other out (witness the idiocy of the 9/11 Truthers and our response to them, not to mention the PUMA dead-enders.) I look forward to the right doing the same thing for their own. I’m sure I’ll be waiting for a while, but I’ve got time and patience.

  286. 286
    Felonious Wench says:

    @Angry Black Lady:

    Sarah!

    Wolverines!

  287. 287
    SFAW says:

    Riddle me that.

    You’re not old enough to remember that

  288. 288

    @Lorna: Not that I enjoy talking to dining room tables, but thank you for revealing that you did not actually read the post and that you have been sent by Sarah! or her ilk! to troll Blogistan today.

    I specifically linked the Malkin list; I provided the csgv list as counterpoint; I specifically noted Obama’s use of the Untouchables quote as well as Kos’ “bullseye on her district,” as well as the Democratic map from 2004.

    What else do you have? (besides Amy Bishop)

    (That’s a non-violent rhetorical question.)

  289. 289
    SFAW says:

    Lorna –

    One last thing (I hope): your persistent “I know you are, but what am I?” retort is certainly indicative of your high intelligence, but even more so: it shows you are a card-carrying member of the Right Wing. That seems to be the only response they can come up with, whenever someone tells them their “facts” are wrong.

    So you just keep telling yourself it’s the BJ commenters who are wrong/stupid/clueless, because that’s how you Right Wingers roll.

  290. 290
    Paul in KY says:

    @Angry Black Lady: Sarah! She’s so cool!

  291. 291
    Paul in KY says:

    @Lorna: Oh no you didn’t!

  292. 292

    @wonkie: “But why do some liberals, Democrats, or progressives try to make the case that we “don’t know” or we can;t “just jump to conlclusins” that a crazy person got his target choice from the all-pervasive atmosphere of intimidation directed toward Griffords fromthe Tea Party picketers, her opponenet and the local hate talk radio:?”

    If in your mind this is such a self-evident fact that you honestly can’t see why anyone would suggest slowing down until you actually have some way of *knowing* what you’re talking about then I would suggest that you might be spending too much time on our own side of the echo chamber. There is no factual evidence out there demonstrating that this “atmosphere of intimidation” influenced the kid, and it came out yesterday when MoJo interviewed a guy who was his best friend in high school that the guy has been hung up on Giffords since at least 2007. Loughner was still close enough to the guy to call him the night before the shootings, so take that for what it’s worth.

    So really, if you can’t look at the fact that *to this point* the best information we have indicates that his obsession with Giffords predates this atmosphere of nasty rhetoric — which is inappropriate and should be stopped *regardless* of whether it had anything to do with Loughner, part of why I’m so baffled about why some of us on the left are so hellbent on connecting the two — by a good year or two and come away with the conclusion that maybe you don’t yet know what brought this about then I don’t even know what to say. We’re all disgusted with the Palin map and the “fire an automatic weapon with Jesse Kelly” promotion and the surveyor’s symbols and people like the Gateway Pundit being desperate to connect this to the left, but then Markos tweeted “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin” and “Fucking American Taliban” before he had even the slightest idea who the killer was. The second tweet just happens to constitute a plug for his book — what an amazing coincidence. But when he does some shit like that, or the old post from him talking about putting a bullseye on Giffords’ district and her on a target list gets drudged up, or Obama talking about bringing a gun to a knife fight gets drudged up, then you know, that’s totally different! Because on the one hand when Palin puts gunsights on a map she needs to realize that there are dangerous crazy people out there who aren’t going to realize it’s a metaphor, but yknow, on the other when the DNC did the same thing or Obama used a gun/knife metaphor or whatever, that was ok because it’s common political speech and no reasonable person is going to think it’s an incitement to violence.

    Can you *honestly* not see the hypocrisy? Really? And yeah: no shit, the left doesn’t have near the problem as the right does. But a big part of our part is that we’re sane and those people are crazy, so don’t we hold ourselves to a higher standard? I’m seeing a whole lot of “as long as we aren’t as bad as them we have no problem at all” outt’ve the left over the last few days, and a prime example is found right up there in ABL’s main post.

    @Angry Black Lady: So long story short, if I want to see what you’re referring I should click over to your website, give you hits and spend my own time reading through your comment section to try and infer what you’re talking about. This is more reasonable than having you type another sentence or two — or failing that, at least link to a specific post on your site — to let me know who you’re talking about and what they said. If I want to figure out whether I think your argument is reasonable or not, I guess I should just go read the comment section of every post on your site huh?

    And you’d be surprised to find out that this constitutes link-trolling too, right?

  293. 293
    Lorna says:

    @Felonious Wench: Okay, so I have a question for you. Given what you have told me. What do you think of our President’s comments the one where he said, “if they bring a knife, you bring a gun” He did say that while a candidate. How about his interjecting his opinion before the nation about the Harvard professor and the police officer, before he had any facts and admitted to that in his prior sentence? What about his comments on Univision this past October, where he told the Latinos to “punish their enemies”……who is he talking about, the Republicans. Has the President been called out on his comments by the left? Is he not in the highest position of power? These are words from our President. Please answer.

    I do think there will be a change on the right. Especially with the new leadership. As I said before I was not very political prior to this election, but if the leadership does not change how they do business they will be voted out. I know

  294. 294
    Nutella says:

    @Angry Black Lady:

    I find it stunning that people would rather take the “wait and see” approach as opposed to the “I don’t know, but maybe we could watch our fucking mouths when while we wait and see” approach.

    Well said.

    An example of someone working that out by considering his own level of responsibility. I have more respect for Taibbi for saying it.

  295. 295
    Paul in KY says:

    @Lorna: The situation he’s describing ‘when they bring a knife, you bring a gun’ is called ‘good logic’. It goes hand-in-hand with ‘don’t bring a knife to a gun fight’.

    I thought you tough macho kicking ass types knew that? Sheesh, what is Sarah! teaching you all. Has she gone Hollywood on you? Come on, you can tell us.

  296. 296

    @Lorna: Ok I’ll bite. The gun/knife thing was inappropriate and should not have been said–full stop. It is also the only example you’ve provided that is remotely relevant.

    Talking about Gates before — by his own admission — he knew what he was talking about was something he shouldn’t have done, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of overheated violent rhetoric.

    “Punishment” means suffering, pain, or loss, and this could very well have meant “punish your enemies by voting them outt’ve office.” No, sorry; not unless my Mom was exhorting me to violence when she’d send me to my room as punishment for getting into the cookie jar.

    @Angry Black Lady: Ok, but what about the “Republicans should watch their mouths while we wait and see; liberals have done nothing wrong” group? Because “I don’t know, but maybe we could watch our fucking mouths while we wait and see” is my exact point, but then I’m just enough of a nitwit* to think that “watch[ing] our fucking mouths” includes refraining from blaming Loughner’s actions on specific individuals when he may not have been influenced by or a culture/atmosphere/whatever of violent rhetoric that appears to have popped up a year or two after he became obsessed with Giffords, at least until more details come out that would give us something a bit stronger to go on.

    *snark. No I’m not going to go dig around your website to figure out what you were referring to, but I’ll take your word for it.

  297. 297

    @Lorna: ahahahahaha. this one takes the cake. absolutely hilarious.

    ETA: damn you, Louis C.K. for making me think before using the word “hilarious”!

  298. 298
    handy says:

    But you have to say it like “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalt!”

    Lost fan, ABL?

  299. 299

    @Mnemosyne: LAWL.

    I’m off to lunch, but can I get one in?

    Lorna: Fuck off!

    (Whee. Totes fun, y’all!)

  300. 300
    mclaren says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Here’s the thing, though—no one is ever going to be able to prove that a specific person wanted this to happen.

    That’s a bridge too far.

    It’s easy to prove that a lot of well-known Republicans wanted something like this to happen and constantly talked about something like this happening and made jokes about how wonderful it would be if something like this happened.

    Take a look at this little example.

    Or take a gander at this rundown of Republican bloodlust.

    Now give me one (1) example of Democrats publicly calling for the murder of their political opponents.

    Take your time.

    I’ll wait.

  301. 301
    Krystal says:

    @Lorna:

    I’m a lurker, but I had to respond to this. This is really great: Loughner is one individual who is solely responsible for his actions and the right had nothing to do with it. On the other hand, the entire “left” is collectively guilty of “misleading” and whatever other terrible things she can think of. So convenient. Trolling based solely on what ever’s on today’s blast fax never really works, because the troll can’t defend her statements. Her arguments end up inconsistent and all over the place, becuase she has no idea what she’s talking about. The sad part is that she thinks she’s really showing everyone else up.

    Also, when the other troll referenced the “leftist/State Media narrative,” I laughed so hard I almost peed my pants.

    These peple are obnoxiously stupid. I used to think they were entertaining, but now they just make me sad. Nothing — not even death of innocents — causes these people to reevaluate their positions.

  302. 302

    @Mnemosyne: @Kryptik: @Paul in KY: Perfect examples of what I was talking about @292 and 296. If Sarah Palin puts crosshairs on a map then she needs to be ashamed because there are crazy people out there who might not recognize the metaphor; if Obama talks about knives and guns that’s perfectly logical because it’s a common metaphor and reasonable people will recognize it as such.

    This is currently a very common sentiment in left blogistan. By and large we’re judging Palin’s actions against how a crazy person would react, and Obama’s against how a completely rational person would react. Apparently we don’t realize how full of shit we are for doing this.

  303. 303
    Lorna says:

    @Paul in KY: See Paul, here is where you lack the ability to make your point. All these posts have been what may have influenced Mr. Loughner to pick up a gun. All the left is saying it is the violent rhetoric from the right. If wacko Loughner was to hear our President say, if they bring a knife, you bring a gun. How do we not know that Mr. Loughner wasn’t just doing what the President told him? Isn’t that the lefts point with the crosshair targets? You, nor I know what sent him over the deep, but the left is trying to pin it on the right, when the right could turn around and say the exact same. I won’t throw insults at you know, because yes, I am above that.

  304. 304
    mclaren says:

    @LongHairedWeirdo:

    People are talking about violent rhetoric, but… there’s a woman who’s been shot.

    And who was famously the target of a gun sight. By someone who chose to lie “noooooo! It was a surveyor’s symbol!”

    That’s just poison mean. That’s just despicably, monstrously poisonous. I don’t care if the shooter never saw the picture; it doesn’t matter. Some awful person put a gun sight on someone you love, that person gets shot…

    It’s worse than that.

    Check it out: Giffords’ Republican opponent in the general election held a political event back in June of last year where he said (and this is a direct word-for-word quote):

    Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse Kelly

    Okay. You tell me. “Get on target for victory.” “Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office.” “Shot [sic] a fully automatic M15.”

    What kind of message does that send?

    You tell me.

    Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

  305. 305
    Chris says:

    @mclaren:

    Or take a gander at this rundown of Republican bloodlust.

    Glenn Beck actually threatening Muslims by telling them they’ll be put into concentration camps takes the cake. And actually adds “we’re sorry, but people just aren’t strong enough to restrain themselves from doing it…”

    The age-old rapist’s excuse (“I couldn’t help myself, she’s just so hot!”) applied to a call for genocide. Oh, and never forget it’s liberal fascism you should worry about…

  306. 306

    @mclaren: “What kind of message does that send?”

    A terrible one. An irresponsible one that grown adults should have known better than to put out there. One that they should be ashamed to have been involved with.

    However, “”A terrible one. An irresponsible one that grown adults should have known better than to put out there. One that they should be ashamed to have been involved with.” is not synonymous with “One that led Jared Loughner to shoot Gabrielle Giffords.” I haven’t followed the thread back far enough to see where you’re coming from with this, so I don’t know whether this is where you’re coming from. But there are plenty of people here running with, “There’s violent rhetoric from rightwingers. A Dem got shot. Draw your own conclusion”-style, “Two facts that I’m not actually making an attempt to connect!” un-arguments.

    @Longhairedweirdo:

    “I don’t care if the shooter never saw the picture; it doesn’t matter.”

    Of course it matters! It has no bearing on the suffering experienced by the victims and their families, but “I don’t care what the facts are, I know why this happened” is a pretty bad place to be going if we’re going to learn any lessons here.

  307. 307
    Felonious Wench says:

    @Lorna:

    Okay, so I have a question for you. Given what you have told me. What do you think of our President’s comments the one where he said, “if they bring a knife, you bring a gun” He did say that while a candidate.

    Didn’t like it at the time, don’t like it now. Said it then, said it again now.

    Item #2 you listed is not relevant. It may bother you, but it’s not relevant to the current discussion.

    Item #3 doesn’t bother me, and it wouldn’t bother me coming from the right either. “Punish” doesn’t imply violence. I punish my 5 year-old by sending him to his room or taking away his teddy bear.

    As to the Left calling out the President, have you ever been to Daily Kos or FireDogLake? Some of our Lefties would love nothing more than to see Obama gone. We’ve been yelling at each other here for months over being disappointed with the president or not disappointed with the president, what he should have said, why he didn’t say it, tougher language, more compromise. On and on. Democrats in Congress do the exact same thing to him. So yeah, the Left calls him out on more than you’ll ever know unless you become more informed about us.

  308. 308
    mclaren says:

    @Lorna:

    All these posts have been what may have influenced Mr. Loughner to pick up a gun.

    No, that’s actually not what people here are saying. The point that Angry Black Lady and various others are making is considerably more sophisticated.

    Nobody knows what caused Loughner to pick up a gun and trying to guess is a fool’s errand. Most likely, the guy’s mental disturbance caused him to pick up a gun. That’s not the issue here.

    What people are saying here is that when one political party completely refuses to accept the legitimacy of another political party even to exist and constantly talks about how

    “…we get to march on Washington, drag you naked and screaming from your offices, and hang you from the ornate lampposts that line The Mall.” — Dean Franks

    …Well, well one political party refuses to accept the right of the people in the other political party to live, it doesn’t matter whether any specific statement caused any specific action by any specific person. That’s not what’s at issue here.

    What’s at issue here is that one political party has now declared that people who believe differently than they do must be hunted down, murdered, beaten to death, hung from the lampposts, shot down like dogs, poisoned, strangled.

    That kind of atmosphere of seething naked virulent poisonous hate increases the likelihood that guys like Loughner will go out and do something violent. Because if people are constantly talking about something and constantly urging everyone to do something, then common sense says that sooner or later, somebody who’s impresionable is gonna go out do that thing that people are constantly talking about and urging and praise and advocating.

    If that something is sending the first man into space, then guess what? If everyone is talking about space exploration and urging space exploration and praising space exploration, then at some point, someone is gonna go out and sit on top of a redstone rocket and get shot into space.

    And if that something is murdering members of the other political party, then guess what? Yeah, skippy, you got it. That’s gonna happen too.

    All the left is saying it is the violent rhetoric from the right.

    No, that’s not what “the left” is saying. People on the left are saying something considerably more sophisticated but you’re just not paying attention, Lorna.

    People on the left are saying that in order for a democracy to function, you have to accept the right of your political opponents to exist. You can’t have a functioning democracy if one party refuses to grant people with different political beliefs the right to live. Okay?

    Got it now?

    I may disagree with you, but you have the right to breathe air. Just because I disagree with you I’m not running around advocating that you get your head sealed inside a plastic bag until you suffocate. I’m not running around saying “This Lorna person needs to be shot in the head.” I’m not telling people “Lorna needs to have some poison put in her creme broulee.” I’m not explaining how “now we get to drag Lorna naked and screaming from her comfy office and string her up from one of those ornate lampposts” the way Dean Franks advocated about liberals.

    Undertand, Lorna?

    There’s a difference.

    If wacko Loughner was to hear our President say, if they bring a knife, you bring a gun. How do we not know that Mr. Loughner wasn’t just doing what the President told him? Isn’t that the lefts point with the crosshair targets?

    No, Lorna, that’s not the point people on the left are making about crosshairs on the map.

    The point about crosshairs on the map is that it’s a substitute for facts and logic. Republicans have no plan. They have no policy. John Boehner says he’s going to cut 100 billion dollars from the federal budget so we can close the deficit, but then when people ask him what programs he intends to cut, he can’t name any.

    Okay?

    That’s called “not having a plan.” That’s called “Republicans, they got nothin’.” And because they have no plan, no policy, no ideas, nothing to suggest to govern America, the only thing they can fall back on is…calling for people to murder Democrats. String up Democrats from the lampposts. Shoot a fully automatic M15. Help remove that Democrat from office. Get on target.

    These are not even code words anymore. Republicans are calling for the murder of their political opponents because Republicans have no facts and no logic and no arguments and no policies and no plan. Kill anyone who gets in their way, murder their way to power, that’s the plan (if you can even call it that).

    Barack Obama is not advocating that Democrats kill their way to power. If you think he is, please point me to the speech where Obama said that. Obama has not suggested that Democrats start stringing up Republicans from lampposts and hanging them. It just hasn’t happened.

    There’s no equivalency here.

    And you know why, Lorna?

    Because Democrats actually have a plan. They have a set of policies. One of their policies is to ratchet down and eventually eliminate out unwinnable foreign wars. Another policy is to reduce our pointless wasteful military spending. Another policy is to raise taxes on the billionaires so they pay their fair share in running this society that made them so rich. Another policy is reforming our broken medical-industrial complex by putting a public option in place and forcing greedy corrupt doctors and hospitals and medical devicemakers to stop practicing medicine by means of bribes and kickbacks and sweetheart contracts and nondisclosure agreements, and start practicing medicine the way the rest of the industrialized world does, with government cost controls and accountability for doctors. Another policy is putting back in place the rules and regulations that were instituted on our corrupt Wall Street casino system after the last Great Depression, but which Republicans unwisely deregulated.

    You, nor I know what sent him over the deep, but the left is trying to pin it on the right, when the right could turn around and say the exact same.

    See, that’s not the point, Lorna. The point is that those policies I just outlined above are substantive policy suggestions. These are actual plans for how to make our society work better. Maybe they’ll work, maybe they won’t, but the point is, Lorna, liberals have a set of policies, and they can cite facts and give sensible reasons why these policies should be enacted.

    The Republicans have nothing. No ideas, no facts, no policies, no plans, just calls for murdering liberals.

  309. 309

    @johnny walker:

    All right, assuming you’re willing to argue in good faith, unlike Lorna, then try these on:

    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.”

    – Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95

    Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him.

    – Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton

    We’re going to keep building the party until we’re hunting Democrats with dogs.

    – Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95

    My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.

    – Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02

    We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.

    – Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02

    Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past – I’m not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble – recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin’s penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an ‘enemy of the people.’ The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, ‘clan liability.’ In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished ‘to the ninth degree’: that is, everyone in the offender’s own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed.

    – John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01

    Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God’s Law and the disenfranchisement of White men.

    – State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01

    These are hardly the only specimens I could dig up, but they’ll do. These are fairly influential people; the most obscure is the last, who’s “only” a state representative. And the best you can come up with against all that is “bringing guns to knife fights”? I’ll concede that that might not have been the wisest thing to say, considering the awful pervasiveness of violent talk from Republicans over the last 20 years. So, even though Democrats just don’t go for violent, eliminationist talk, I’ll go along and say Obama shouldn’t have said that.

    But the reason Obama’s quote is not nearly as worrisome is that influential Democrats have not been saying things like that year in and year out for 20 years. O.K.? Is that clear? Yes, maybe Obama should get a pass when he says something about knives and guns in a speech. This is not his stock in trade. The reason Republicans do not get such a pass–and keep in mind too that we aren’t talking about legal or criminal consequences, only moral and electoral consequences–it that they have been doing this for 20 years. Do you see it? That is how the Democrats and the Republicans are unlike: Democrats do not deal in violent, elimnationist talk. Republicans do.

    Before you object, no, not all Republicans talk like Limbaugh or Palin. And, yes, some Democrats say awful things from time to time. But when conservatives whine about a double standard–Republicans get criticized when they say violent things or threaten somebody, Democrats don’t–keep in mind why this double standard is there: It’s there because of the last 20 years.

    I taught at a little bilingual school in Honduras from 1994 to 1996. My first year there I had the 4th grade. And I learned within days what the students were like. Some were quiet and well behaved; others were neverendingly troublesome. Now, when I sent one of the troublemakers to detention, and let a quiet one slide by for doing something more or less the same, sometimes the students would blame me for having a double standard.

    And they had a point. I did have a double standard. But the thing is, by the time I’d been there a few weeks, the rowdy students had used up all their benefits of the doubt. When, say, Mario did something disruptive, I’d come down on him. When Eneyda did something… well, come to think of it, I don’t think Eneyda got on my nerves once that whole year. But if she had, I would have let it slide, since she’d spent the whole year building up a deep well of benefit of the doubt.

    That’s kind of how it is with the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans, well, too many of them, say violent things and tread awfully near to incitement too often, and have done it for too long, and the ones doing it have been too prominent to have any business asking reasonable people for any benefit of the doubt. Democrats, they’ve been pretty good about not doing this kind of thing. When it happens, it’s far more likely to be some random blogger with 37 readers. When it is an elected Democrat, it’s a one-time thing, and most often far less explicit than a typical Republican example.

    There is a double standard, but it’s there for a reason. If Republicans want people to give them the benefit of the doubt, then they need to give us a reason to give it to them.

  310. 310
    mclaren says:

    @johnny walker:

    But there are plenty of people here running with, “There’s violent rhetoric from rightwingers. A Dem got shot. Draw your own conclusion”-style, “Two facts that I’m not actually making an attempt to connect!” un-arguments.

    Well, permit me to demur slightly here. Because I don’t think that’s the argument that most liberals on this thread are making.

    It seems to me that the arguments we’re hearing here are considerably more sophisicated.

    The issue isn’t whether Loughner was specifically impelled to do what he did by some Republican. That’s a silly argument, and people here aren’t making it, as far as I can tell.

    The argument that people here seem to be making is that you can’t have a functioning democracy when one political party is openly calling for the murder of the members of the other political party. In short, to have a working society, people have to agree at a basic level that even if I don’t like what you say or what you believe, you still have a right to breathe the air.

    Okay?

    When one political party starts perpetuating the attitude that if you disagree with us, you should be hung/shot/beaten/set on fire/impaled/beheaded, then society starts to break down.

    And you know what happens when society starts to break down?

    You get incidents like the one in Arizona with Loughner. We’re not talking about a 1-to-1 causality here. It’s like the temperature in a room. When you raise the temperature in a room high enough, the house starts to burn. You can try to play verbal calisthenics and claim “But you haven’t proven that this particular air molecule set the house on fire!” — but, you see, that’s not the point.

    The point is that if the temperature gets high enough, the house burns down.

    Republicans using this kind of violent rhetoric is the equivalent of leaving an uncovered can of gasoline in the garage during a heatwave in summer. Then they act all surprised when the house burns down.

    No surprise, is what we’re saying. That’s all. Just “Why are you surprised? What else did you expect?”

  311. 311
  312. 312
    mclaren says:

    @Lorna:

    Yea, okay Angry Black Lady…..what does your name mean….why are you so angry?

    Start here.

  313. 313

    @Lorna: (spoiler alert!) it has nothing to do with politics, but since you evidently didn’t take the time to read this post, i doubt you’ll take the time to read my “about me” section of my blog even if i were to link it for you.)

    nice try, honey.

    also, too, Fuck off!

  314. 314

    @mclaren:

    Aw, jeez, man, I swear, when are these black people going to lighten up? I mean there hasn’t been a lynching in like, what, 60 or 70 years, right? Oh, and that guy in Texas the guy some guys dragged to death behind a truck, well, that doesn’t count, since they didn’t hang him, and you have to hang a person for it to count as an official lynching, so don’t go trying to nitpick me, damn it.

    But, I swear, some black people just can’t get over this stuff. Lynchings. Slavery. I mean, slavery ended 150 years ago. How long are you going to keep bringing that up? Get over it already.

    I mean, what with all this affirmative action crap, it’s the whities like me who are really getting the short end of the stick. Think about it, what chance for advancement have white people ever really had in this country? I mean, the president doesn’t even look like me anymore. Now that’s injustice!

  315. 315

    @johnny walker: i don’t care whether or not you click on to my blog. my blog is ad-free so giving me hits does absolutely nothing.

    as i’ve repeated time and time again in my posts here, i write, i post what i write at my blog, copy the html code, and dump it here.

    you took offense at my use of the term “nitwit,” and then when i told you that the term didn’t apply to you and pointed you to the section in THIS blog post on THIS blog that expressly stated that the term was addressed to people on my blog, AS WELL AS doing exactly what you suggested, which is to provide a link to the specific type of comment to which i was referring, you got your panties in a wad.

    now why is that? my guess is that you’re a nitwit. but i don’t have any proof of that, so i’m just going to take a wait and see approach.

    try again.

  316. 316
  317. 317
    Ash Can says:

    @Felonious Wench: Actually, I find the phrase “punish our enemies” the most objectionable of the bunch, not because of the “punish” bit but because of the “enemies” bit. That’s the sort of demeaning of opponents that I most object to on the right. The “bring a knife, bring a gun” bit, on the other hand, doesn’t faze me because I recognize it first and foremost as a famous line from The Untouchables, which was a movie I thoroughly enjoyed.

    …Of course, if we put Lorna et al.’s examples into the even broader context of what Obama in particular and left-wing/Democratic leaders in general have been saying consistently over the last couple of decades, and compare those patterns of behavior to their right-wing/Republican counterparts, well, we’re talking about a whole different ballgame, now, aren’t we? ;)

  318. 318

    Can you honestly not see the hypocrisy? Really? And yeah: no shit, the left doesn’t have near the problem as the right does. But a big part of our part is that we’re sane and those people are crazy, so don’t we hold ourselves to a higher standard? I’m seeing a whole lot of “as long as we aren’t as bad as them we have no problem at all” outt’ve the left over the last few days, and a prime example is found right up there in ABL’s main post.

    challenge: point me to where i’ve stated that as long as we aren’t as bad as them we have no problem at all.

    reading comprehension failure on so many levels.

  319. 319

    @Nutella: that’s brilliant. KO did the same thing. now how many right wing talking heads will follow suit?

  320. 320
    Lorna says:

    @Angry Black Lady: You are right, I don’t want to read about a rude, obnixious, name calling, windbag. I was just being a smartass!

  321. 321

    @Bender: oh mah gawl. where do you people come from? is there a palinite hub somewhere on the internets where you meet each day to load up your cargo planes with talking points and then you fly over blogistan crop dusting the world wide internet with your bullshit? i know you’re getting them from somewhere; don’t tell me it’s independent research. yours are quite literally the same damn talking points i’ve seen on most liberalesque blogs, half of which i covered in my post.

    i seriously would like to know where the mothership is. i recall debating the ground zero “mosk” with people on facebook a few months ago. i was arguing with some dipshit and was so amazed by level of fail that was oozing from this person’s fingertips that i copied his comment on the wall of another friend of mine. that friend immediately chimed in and said “hey, someone else posted the exact some comment verbatim in response to one of my comments.”

    where’s your home base?

    take me to your leader.

  322. 322

    You are right, I don’t want to read about a rude, obnixious [sic], name calling, windbag. I was just being a dumbass!

    fix’d.

    ETA: didn’t you say you didn’t have all day? i suspect you’ll be here until the bitter end so you can get the last word.

  323. 323
  324. 324
    Felonious Wench says:

    @Mumphrey (formerly Renfrew Squeevil (formerly Mumphrey Oddison Yamm (formerly Mumphrey O. Yamm (formerly Mumphrey)))):

    There is a double standard, but it’s there for a reason. If Republicans want people to give them the benefit of the doubt, then they need to give us a reason to give it to them.

    Your posts have been great on this topic, btw. My maiden name is Renfrew, so I’m loving that as well.

  325. 325
    Lorna says:

    @Felonious Wench:

    Item #3 doesn’t bother me, and it wouldn’t bother me coming from the right either. “Punish” doesn’t imply violence. I punish my 5 year-old by sending him to his room or taking away his teddy bear.

    Not the word that bothers me, it is the use of the word enemies, why is the President of the United States telling Latinos that the Republicans are their enemies?

    The far left progressives yell or call him out because they feel he has not done enough, not because they are trying to tell him something was inappropriate . At least that is my take.

  326. 326
    Felonious Wench says:

    @Mumphrey (formerly Renfrew Squeevil (formerly Mumphrey Oddison Yamm (formerly Mumphrey O. Yamm (formerly Mumphrey)))):

    Fuck off.

    Yes, afraid my store of patience has worn out too. In fine Balloon Juice tradition, Lorna, fuck you with a rusty pitchfork, sideways.

    Also, too.

  327. 327
    Felonious Wench says:

    @Angry Black Lady:

    i seriously would like to know where the mothership is.

    I’m thinking Free Republic.

  328. 328
  329. 329

    I won’t throw insults at you know, because yes, I am above that.

    ah, remember when lorna said this about an hour and a half before calling me a rude, obnoxious, name-calling, windbag?

    those were heady times. i miss those days.

    and that was before i called her a mental midget incapable of holding two thoughts at once in her pea-sized brain and who was only put here on this earth to snort up right-wing talking points and sneeze them all over blogistan.

  330. 330
    Lorna says:

    Thats too bad that 2012 scares you all so. But when the Repubs take back the Senate and the Presidency I believe I will smile. For all your hateful rhetoric, and stomping on the constitution, the American people have seen right through it. They are tired of the do as I say not as I do mentality. They are tired of bills being passed and not read, they are tired of the elitists telling them what is good for them and that they know better. They are tired of the lack of transparency and hypocrisy. For all of your crying wolf and never letting a good crisis go to waste. It must suck to be a progressive. And hate is all you have, must suck to be you! All frustrated and such. As I said it is all falling apart for the progressive left…….I have a little tear……… nope. jk

  331. 331

    @Lorna:

    Fuck off.

    No, really. Fuck off. Nobody here wants to read your shit and it doesn’t seem like it could be much fun for you here, either. So head off on your merry way, and we’ll fondly recall all the good times we had as you led us out of our benighted ignorance, and you can fondly recall all the good times you had as you led us into the light.

    So just fuck off, already.

  332. 332

    @Lorna: ha! i am all frustrated and such. also, too, iraq, such as.

    last word, back to you, lorna.

    you’ve been going strong (well, strong is a gross overstatement) since 8:25 a.m. most impressive.

    what other blogs are on your roll call today?

  333. 333
  334. 334
  335. 335
    Ash Can says:

    @Mumphrey (formerly Renfrew Squeevil (formerly Mumphrey Oddison Yamm (formerly Mumphrey O. Yamm (formerly Mumphrey)))): She won’t fuck off until she runs out of right-wing talking points. And even then she’ll start all over again and repeat them all. After all, she’s doing such a marvelous job of Telling Us All Off, So There (TM) that she’ll never quit at this rate.

  336. 336
  337. 337
    Lorna says:

    By the way lefties, don’t go into any target department stores………wouldn’t want you to feel violently threatened by the target symbol! Just looking out for you.

  338. 338
    piratedan says:

    @Lorna:

    ty….tyvm…. that was Lorna everyone, please pardon Lorna while she takes a brief moment indulging in her own self pleasure from her last post. She’ll be right back for more engaging hippie punching and vague conservative manifesto demagoguery right after this word from Glen Beck and buying gold.

  339. 339

    @johnny walker:

    Of course it matters! It has no bearing on the suffering experienced by the victims and their families, but “I don’t care what the facts are, I know why this happened” is a pretty bad place to be going if we’re going to learn any lessons here.

    *DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH*.

    I am *not* talking about the motivations of the shooter. The motivations of the shooter are *irrelevant*.

    Creating a picture where someone’s targeted by a gunsight is a shitty thing to do.

    Having that person later be shot – regardless of why the shooting occurred – makes it even worse.

    And then whining about “surveyors symbols” should make any honest person sick.

    Whatever the motivations of the shooter turn out to be, people should be disgusted with Palin for the gun sight, and doubly so for her bullshit response. Not because she caused the shooting but because she was petty and mean-spirited, and showed no concern for anyone but herself in the aftermath.

  340. 340
    Chris says:

    Not the word that bothers me, it is the use of the word enemies, why is the President of the United States telling Latinos that the Republicans are their enemies?

    Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because the people who want to strip them of citizenship and deport them because their parents broke the law happen to be Republican. Maybe because the birdbrain, Samuel Huntington-based theories about how this country can’t survive unless it stays WASP-based and Latinos are a threat to that WASPiness all happen to take root among Republicans. Maybe because comments like this

    so you believe that the people who actually work and pay taxes should support the able-bodied welfare queens and latinos and their illegals relatives on welfare, rent subsidy, food stamps etc.? The hard working true americans who lost thier jobs can’t get any help to keep their homes, but you want the taxpayers to support people who have never worked and just suck off society? yeah, that’s something everyone can believe in.

    (found on Yahoo News today in the comments section here http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailyb.....npartyback)

    to the effect that all Latinos are illegal or have illegal relatives and that they’re able-bodied but on welfare… seem to not only come from Republicans but are conventional wisdom and a defining principle among Republicans.

    Your party regularly refers to them as an invading and hostile force and a threat to America’s way of life. You chose to have a relationship of enemies with the Latino community, not them and not President Obama – all he did was recognize it.

    And I’d point out that the word “punishing your enemies” was used in a simple context of helping vote Republicans out of office or Democrats in office. There was no reference to Latino voters, oh, for example, “using Second Amendment remedies” if the people had the outrageous nerve not to vote the way he wanted them to.

  341. 341
    ABL says:

    @Lorna: fuck off!

    your move.

  342. 342
    SFAW says:

    ABL –

    Come on, you KNOW she doesn’t have the time for this.

    Yet another case of “you people” taking things away from “real people”.

  343. 343
    Cerberus says:

    Ugh, skipped down the predictable apologetics, cause frankly they make me mourn for humanity.

    So anyways, there was a lot of noise about how “the killers beliefs are incoherent” and are “more crazy than right-wing”.

    Probably based around his bizarre reading list and the strong focus of his absolutely batshit “grammar is a government plot shit”.

    I don’t know if it has already been put up or not, but the origin for that conspiracy is a “sovereign citizen” activist and anti-tax activist named David Wynn Miller.

    Sovereign citizen being that movement that is made up of people who think militias are too leftist for them.

    Basically, Mr. Shooter had his most obvious (at least recently) influence from the extreme right. If the ranting about the gold standard (a favorite Glenn Beck topic (because he’s a con-artist for gold companies)) and the other right-wing conspiracy theories about the government weren’t the first fucking clues on that score.

    However, the strong desire to go “oh, but he was crazy, look at his conspiracy theory insanities, he must be non-partisan” brings up a frightening thought at least for me.

    In recent times, we have seen the right forging their own realities out of imagined conspiracy theories. We have seen their “biology is a plot to attack Jesus” creationism theories. We have seen their “all climate scientists are lying about global warming for government grant money” theories.

    And of course, we have seen the mother of all conspiracy theories in the Rapturist beliefs (Slacktivist does the best deconstructions of them) that are pretty much behind at least half of the crazy anti-reality things they believe and explain many of the bizarre reflexive responses to anything “community”, “peace”, or having even the slightest connection to the UN.

    And beyond that, many sites have been hard at work tracking down conspiracy theories widespread on the right that few were aware of like the Amero or ACORN goons funded by Soros and so on and Glenn Beck’s end-of-the-world gold-peddling.

    There have been jokes on this blog about it, “The Wingularity” and all that, but it’s becoming worrisome, especially with the purges of anyone even remotely sane as part of the Tea Party’s at least media ascension and the GOP’s response to it.

    Basically, are we rapidly reaching a point where “conservative” is becoming synonymous with “crackpot insanity”.

    Yes, the guy is crazy.

    But so’s an ever-growing portion of the “conservative base”, and certainly is the portion of our population most actively being recruited for right-wing ideology right now.

    Can we point that out and possibly deal with what this means or is that “non-bipartisan” “politicizations”?

    P.S. The last sentence is snark. Of course we should be pointing this out and hammering it home because the appeal to guilt and fairness is the tools of trade of right-wing terrorism efforts. Strike a target to make the other side scared of speaking up for itself and then shame the remainder in the memory of the tragedy to further censor themselves “as a token of respect”, while they continue to ramp up the rhetoric to serve as warning.

    And given this has been the case of pretty much everything even remotely on the left (I mean seriously, what liberal group or organization doesn’t have martyrs taken by assassination or violence, I mean besides maybe green energy), I think we can dispense with the bullshit.

    I mean, I understand everyone grieves and tries to make sense of it in their own ways and to some, pretending that this was random is part of that. But, after your done, we need to figure out how we break these cycles of violence, mourning, and slow-rebuild, especially as we are entering another turbulent time in our nation’s history. Or perhaps just continuing the same unbroken one we’ve had since our founding.

    EIther way, we need to figure it out and handle it.

    And if you need a “nonpartisan” suggestion (oh, how this word tastes like bile in my mouth right now thanks to the actions of the apologists and conservative assholes), how about this?

    We actually start getting the mentally ill genuine medical help (on the government’s dime, full payment) so they are no longer such easy marks for the right wing’s eliminationist rhetoric.

  344. 344
    Cerberus says:

    @Cerberus:

    Addendum to my comment.

    Another thing that’s worrying besides the drive to recruit the mentally ill is the desire to induce delusions in their sane or mentally imbalanced followers, distort the reporting of reality to get people invested in mentally ill ways of perceiving the world and investment in conspiracy theories.

    Not to mention the attempts to mainstream conspiracy theories or flat-out incorrect ways of interacting with reality that are flat-out disproved or unsupported by actual fact. Most distressing are the points of success where we must all pretend that we are debating a rational or at least honest opponent.

    On those last points, the universality of acceptance of the notion that tax cuts can only help the economy, never hurt it, the idea that government is unnecessary in any form other than the military, or the idea that there is a reasonable medical and human rights debate about the medical procedure of abortion and that the procedure is in and of itself controversial and somehow inherently shady and wrong.

    All now accepted certainly in our discourse, but also cornerstones of what it means to be conservative. You can be drummed out of organizations and parties for not accepting these inaccurate views of reality as gospel truths.

    More generally, we have seen in Glenn Beck one of the more open and blatant attempts at a con-man trying to induce new conspiracy theories into his audience simply to aid major financial partners.

    And we have seen how very few GOP officials are really willing to call flat-out bullshit on the Birther insanity and even fewer still who speak out against The Rapture-obsessed multitudes.

    And as such, they choose instead to egg on and lend credence to the insanities, introducing their own choice versions hoping for political or financial gain (need I remind anyone of “Obamacare will kill your grandma”, the “Obama will take your guns away”, or the oil-company backed attempts to feed the “global warming is a myth” conspiracy theories?).

    And perhaps it’s just the smaller organization is making the crazies already there that much louder, but regardless of time of origin, we do need to speak out and deal with the ways that the right has turned to promoting and creating fictional worlds, conspiracy theories, and mentally ill ways of interacting with other humans (such as promoting sociopathy in defense of torture) as a matter of first resort and the harm this not only has already had on our politics and discourse, but in incidents like this, the public safety and the sheer numbers of “random mentally ill individuals taking unprecedented actions” whenever democrats or liberals are politically or socially dominant.

  345. 345
    Tom M says:

    Oh, LornaThats too bad that 2012 scares you all so.

    Scares Boehner, too. If unemployment’s still where it is today, it’ll be his turn. But not in a harmful way.

    By the way, we’re not afraid of that chain store, you’re just pronouncing it wrong. But, then, wrong is your metier, non?

  346. 346
    Lorna says:

    @Tom M: Hey Tom, am I wrong on the terrible violent symbol that accompanies the name? What would be your stupid spin on that? I would stay away from that store. They must just be violent right wing haters in there.

  347. 347
    Paul in KY says:

    @Lorna: Because she was a Democrat, you stupid fool. Pres Obama wouldn’t be inciting people to kill Democrats (and he isn’t inciting people to kill anyone, anyway).

  348. 348
    Lorna says:

    @SFAW:

    Lorna –
    What company do you work for? Because I want to short their stock in a major way.

    Thx

    General Electric.

  349. 349
    SFAW says:

    Paul –
    Don’t waste your “breath”. It is clear that Lorna’s understanding of English is on a par with my ability to speak Tagalog or Aramaic.

    Which, in case it wasn’t obvious, is nil.

    But she does appear to be able to “push the button” on the Random Bullshit Generator ™, a device loaded into every wingnut blogger’s computer.

  350. 350
    SFAW says:

    General Electric.

    You obviously weren’t there during the Jack Welch years.

  351. 351
    Lorna says:

    @Paul in KY:

    @Lorna: Because she was a Democrat, you stupid fool. Pres Obama wouldn’t be inciting people to kill Democrats (and he isn’t inciting people to kill anyone, anyway).

    Glad you explained that answer, the President wouldn’t be inciting people to kill Dems……..just Repubs? And people as messed up as Jared Loughney would know what he was implying…..is that why you felt you needed to explain your answer?

  352. 352
    Ash Can says:

    This thread is soooo yesterday…

  353. 353
    Lorna says:

    @SFAW: I am currently employed there. So please, do short their stock in a major way as you stated.

  354. 354
    SFAW says:

    ..is that why you felt you needed to explain your answer?

    No, he knew that you would be unable to comprehend the concept – which everyone else seems to be able to – without an explanation for your teeny brain.

    Nice to see that he surmised correctly.

    OK, now it’s your turn to do yet another “I know you are, but what am I?” retort.

    For someone who (allegedly) doesn’t have time for this and (allegedly) works for GE, you seem to have plenty of time to display yore ignorance. So, in addition to being a “low information” (a/k/a stupid) person, you appear to be a liar as well. Gee, never woulda guessed that.

  355. 355
    SFAW says:

    I am currently employed there

    I don’t think you buying their light bulbs qualifies you as an employee.

  356. 356
    SFAW says:

    Ash Can –

    True.

    I was bored, needed to read my daily dose of wingnut stupid.

  357. 357
    Lorna says:

    @Felonious Wench:

    Yes, afraid my store of patience has worn out too. In fine Balloon Juice tradition, Lorna, fuck you with a rusty pitchfork, sideways.

    Wench, Are you threatening violence? Or wait the left doesn’t threaten violence, so you are just kidding around right? You might want to request deletion. You sit on your high horse and ask me if I repudiate the right.Well please tell me where I can find the lefts repudiation of Former Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Democratic congressman for over a quarter century who represented the Scranton-Hazelton region of eastern Pennsylvania, who less than two weeks before Election Day told the Scranton Times Tribune’s editorial board that Florida’s new Republican Governor, Rick Scott, should be shot.

    “That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” an Oct. 23, 2010 Times-Tribune story quoted Kanjorski as complaining. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”

    I couldn’t find any comments from the dems, left or progressives of repudiation. Did he actually call for the shooting of a politician? Wait, that probably wasn’t violent rhetoric………he was probably just joking, maybe he meant with a camera. You progressives are such hypocrites, but then what did I expect? (rhetorical)

  358. 358
    Max says:

    I gotta call bullshit here. You state; “Michelle Malkin’s list spans ten years, and includes such horrors as someone throwing a cup of salad dressing in Pat Buchanan’s face, and someone throwing an ice cream pie at Bill Kristol. Such delicious violent rhetoric, innit?”

    Yet when I click on the link one of the first images cited is one of someone pointing a rifle at a cardboard cutout likeness of Palin. There are also several other violent images and statements listed.

  359. 359
    SFAW says:

    Yet when I click on the link one of the first images cited is one of someone pointing a rifle at a cardboard cutout likeness of Palin.

    I call bullshit here. It was on Getty Images – as if that’s anything other than an aggregator/collector of photos worldwide. The photo you cite also has no context, so we don’t know if it’s yet another example of the Rovian “People, these rats aren’t going to fuck themselves!” or what. But we DO know that, until Malkin found it, it was not exactly widely disseminated.

Comments are closed.