Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot in Tucson

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 110 discussions (502 posts)

83
habeeposted 14 years ago
Hi, Jim. I don't think Palin wanted those people killed, but maybe some delusional Palin follower THINKS Palin wanted them killed. I still don't like the rifle scope crosshairs thingy.
reply report
1. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
  
  Would the word targeted be any better to you?
  
  Like I said rational people look at it and see it for what it is.
  
  Who knows what irrational people see.
  reply report
  58
  Stump Parrishposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Jim, instructions is what some of them see. That's not real hard to figure out if you pay attention to current events.
  reply report
  84
  kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Seriously!
  reply report
59
BobbiRantposted 14 years ago
In America now, too many people have nothing to lose, those people are the most dangerous of all. We are heading for a 2 class system, also a most dangerous system to be living in. People who continue to lose everything, jobs, homes, their very lives, are the most dangerous. This is what happened in the French Revolution, and also in Nazi Germany. When people become desperate, they will do desperate things and will hold officials accountable. It is sad but true. When Nazi Germany listened to Hitler, people were starving. Just 10 years before he took power, people looked at Hitler as a crackpot, but not when they became desperate. As a Sociologist, I must say; America is becoming a very dangerous place.
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Quite.
  We have a fairly good standard of unemployment benefit in the UK which is generally attributed to the left wing.
  In actual fact it was opposed by the left wing and fought for by the right who understood that a hungry man is an angry man.
  reply report
75
Jeff Berndtposted 14 years ago
Wow. Just...wow. So many angry words and unfounded speculation. Folks, we know exactly nothing about this yet, other than the fact that a number of people, including a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl, were killed by a guy with a very eclectic reading list.

Perhaps we should wait until more facts come to light before pointing fingers, eh?
reply report
1. 71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you read what's on the Internet we know quite a lot about the incident. First of all, the shooting occurred at a political event, and two of the victims had been the subject of criticism and death threats from extremists who disagreed with their public policy actions or positions. It was not a random shooting at an athletic event or crowded mall. We also now know a fair amount about the shooter. As one reporter said he was "alienated, angry (at the government) and confused."
  reply report
2. 71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  More information will become available, but the speculation certainly isn't "unfounded." See my previous comment.
  reply report
81
Tom Cornettposted 14 years ago
"A pointing finger is nothing more than an erection of an idiot".....A quote from a homeless Veteran in Nashville Tennessee.
reply report
0
EmpressFelicityposted 14 years ago
:Jumping straight in here, without having read all the posts:

Last night there was an item about the shooting on the Channel 4 news (that's in the UK). The newscaster first talked about the shooting itself, and then the camera immediately panned to Sarah Palin and her map of the US with its targets.

The insinuation was that Ms Palin had actually incited this nutter to run amok with his gun. Or at least, that's what I read into it and I'm sure that's what a lot of other people would have read into it too.

I don't have any particular affinity for Sarah Palin, but even so there's no way I believe she'd seriously advocate shooting her political opponents. The media has a lot to answer for, not least in the way it "spins" events so that we're all "meant" to think in a particular fashion - while maintaining enough "plausible deniability" to back away if challenged.
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I do not believe that Sarah Palin is advocating that her followers shoot congressional candidates.
  
  But, I have to ask, why use such inflammatory symbolism and language on her map? Why were those particular words and and symbols chosen?
  
  As recently as a few months ago, I created maps as part of my job for a government agency. We would NEVER use those types of symbols or words on a map like that. NEVER. It would be irresponsible.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Because she has some incredibly stupid people on her PR team? And presumably because she's known for her pro-gun stance (so I gather) so the gun sights were thought to be an appropriate metaphor.
  
  Shame that there are some real looneytunes out there, who wouldn't know a metaphor if it bit them on the leg. That's even assuming this particular shooter was influenced by SP's gun imagery (was he? Sorry if anyone's answered this one - I must have missed it).
  
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Empress by all accounts this guy was nothing but a psycho loner who loved the communist manifesto and was an atheist.From what I have read he had no allegainces to any group. And by the way Giffords was pro gun as well. I am sure that will change for her now and I certainly can understand that.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know those things, Tony? Have you left out anything that we also know?
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  From relentlessly watching and the news channels Jeff.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "who loved the communist manifesto"
  You left out that he also seemed to have a thing for Mein Kampf, Aesop's Fables, and The Phantom Tollbooth, among others.
  
  Nice cherry-picking.
  
  You seem to be trying to associate this guy with the Left just as much as anyone else is trying to associate him with the Right. Though you're clever about it, saying that he wasn't a member of any group while pointing out that he likes the Communist Manifesto. It's a subtle juxtaposition, and maybe it was unconscious on your part, but but it's there.
  
  The guy's writings (having read a couple) look like he has no clear idea what he really believes in, nor any clear understanding of the subjects he was writing about. He's all over the map. But he sure does seem to be angry...
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  From what I have read he had no allegainces to any group.
  
  That was also in my post Jeff. And it seems to me everybody and their uncle is trying to pin him with the Tea Party.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "That was also in my post Jeff."
  
  Yeah, I know. I mentioned that in my previous post.
  
  [paraphrase]He had no allegiance to any group. He like the communist manifesto, but he wasn't part of any group. He was an atheist, but he wasn't part of any group.[/paraphrase]
  
  Juxtapositioning this guy with buzzwords associated with the radical Left while pointing out that he wasn't part of any group isn't exactly what I'd call "fair and balanced."
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know if there is any direct connection, but to me, it doesn't matter. When you work in government, as Sarah used to, or when you are campaigning to be a leader, you think carefully about your words and actions. Sarah Palin has shown herself to be inflammatory and reckless, and she is not the only one.
  
  Also, as soon as that map appeared online, she received a lot of criticism for it, but it was only removed after someone on the map was shot. To me, that's telling.
  reply report
2. 59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody is suggesting SP was behind the shooting. Congresswoman Gifford, who was shot, was 'targeted' by the Tea Party and in the November election Congresswoman Gifford defeated the Tea Party candidate who was endorsed by Sarah Palin. The issue is violent and inflamitory rhetoric, such as Sharon Angle threatening to invoke 'second amendment' options. For those not in the US, the second amendment guarantees the right to own a gun.
  
  The threat of armed insurrection by Tea Party fans is both overt and implied. Sarah Palin was criticized for the image of 'reload' comments she made. Conservatives have turned anger into a political force in the US - that's my perception - and it's replaced civilized discourse in the political process.
  reply report
  84
  manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You just contradicted yourself from your first paragraph where
  you said nobody was saying that the "Tea Party" had some one targeted. Then, you go on to state what your perception is...almost along the lines of the complete opposite. I know this is going to mess up your intellect and perception on things, but why are you talking out of both sides of your mouth?
  
  I don't get how when some "people" can say Conservatives have turned anger into a political force...then that in itself is not "Hate Speech"...aren't you really trying to manipulate your words around to say that Conservatives want to start an Armed Insurrection...? I mean come on...get back in touch with people who may have a different take on things then yourself. Did you honestly think that everyone would conform to your "superior intellect" way of thinking...Dang! Do you honestly think anyone but a complete 'nutjob' would want to hurt a Nine Year Old Girl, a Congresswoman, a Judge, and several innocent onlookers?
  
  The guy was stopped while trying to reload in a crowd of innocent people...for gosh sakes. Geez...this should make us all want to come together. Instead of pointing fingers. The 'nutjpob' wanted to start division...by his actions. We give too much attention to 'nutjobs' like this guy...and thus give them a platform. The focus should be on mourning and swift justice for the person or person(s) responsible.
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Read what I wrote. I said no one is suggesting Sarah Palin is behind the shootings. I also said that fringe elements and some mainstream players of the Tea Party are threatening armed insurrection if they don't get their way in elections. No contradiction and plenty of evidence to support all of that.
  
  The shooter was a nut. Unfortunately, nuts are even more affected by the steady drumbeat of hate and paranoia churned out by Fox to generate votes.
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The shooter was a nut. Unfortunately, nuts are even more affected by the steady drumbeat of hate and paranoia churned out by Fox to generate votes.
  
  And MSNBC and the Huffington Post don't promote any hate at all
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Angry rhetoric exists on the left and the right. Tempers flair. No argument .
  
  Look at these numbers, though. In 2007, tax revenue from gun & ammo sales were $287 million - in 2010, $452 million. I understand that in 2008, ammo makers could not keep up with demand - in the recession. The only change in gun laws was the one Obama signed into law which permitted guns on some federal property. So who's buying and why?
  
  Consider a second statistic. IN 2007, the number of active militias was 43. In 2010 it was 127. I don't think you can suggest there's a cause for concern that the far left advocates the overthrow of the government by force. But there's no shortage of implied and direct suggestions from the far right and libertarians.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Their stuff is much more accurate and objective.
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Ralph , don't agree with that at all.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't be sorry. I didn't expect you to agree that Larry O'Donnell or Rachel Maddow are more factual and objective than Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
  reply report
  83
  habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'll agree with that, Ralph, but I wouldn't say the same for Keith Olbermann.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Keith gets a little too worked up fairly often. Nevertheless, he doesn't begin to compare with looney tunes Beck.
  reply report
  75
  barryrutherfordposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Re Keith Olbermann
  Someone I know passed on to me this Ithink also
  
  it captures the nub of yesterday's Arizona shooting tragedy more effectively than anything else I have so far seen, or I suspect am likely to see. And if you are are as impressed by it as I have been, please consider sharing it.
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp … 1#40983401
  reply report
  84
  manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I read what you wrote....and it is alot of goobly gook-opinionated nonsensense. Ask yourself...Who are you most upset with for what occurred yesterday in Tucson. The Tea Party Leaders...or the actual 'nut job' that did this horrible thing?
  
  I am sorry...but I do not subscribe to the thinking that you have where "nuts are even more affected by the steady drumbeat of hate and paranoia churned out by Fox to generate votes". That type of thinking...where individuals do not have a brain...or are not responsible for their own actions...is in itself very scary to me. I can't understand how people are so quick to point blame without it being directly on this 'nut job'. For gosh sakes....he was p_ssed off about grammer usage and not having a new currency in his December 2010 video. Is this the makings of someone who must be scrutinized in detail...He is a 'nut job'.
  
  My heart and sorrow go out to the ones who had to share the same spot with this irrational human at the moment he thought he had the right to take another human beings life. And...with all the loss...and hurt in this tragedy. I can't help but think of the tragic loss of the little nine year old girl...with her whole life ahead...
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Who are you most upset with for what occurred yesterday in Tucson. The Tea Party Leaders...or the actual 'nut job' that did this horrible thing? "
  
  This "horrible thing" is not the disease - it's a symptom of the disease. The idea that the outcome of an election can be corrected through violence is out there. It's been suggested by mainstream tea party candidates.
  
  What I want is for the Tea Party and the GOP and every conservative candidate to say -
  
  'If you are sitting on a small mountain of ammunition, cleaning your Glock, dreaming about watering the tree of liberty with real blood, we don't want you. We don't want your vote. Form your own party or move away or eat a bullet before you murder anyone."
  
  But they will never say it.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I dunno, stuff like this seems pretty much like "drumbeats of hatred"
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdrn_v23gwk
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The threat of a return to Revolution has its value. The United States has been in revolt against the weight of human history form its very beginnings. That revolutionary fervor is only now dieing our and it should be revived. It has energized our politics and economics up to the 1930s when we finally we decided we preferred the yoke.
  reply report
  82
  Doc Snowposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mockery, yes. Insult, yes. Distaste, yes. Devastating criticism, yes.
  
  But there's absolutely no incitement of any sort, no dehumanization of any sort, no attempt to whip up anger. A small but telling detail: Palladino is the "worst *person* in the world." Worst, but still a person.
  
  What Olberman (did I spell that right? I wouldn't want to anger any paranoid wack jobs with spelling fetishes!) seems to be trying to do is to get people to laugh at the objects of his criticisms.
  
  And that's the last emotion that's going to get you to pick up a gun.
  reply report
75
frogdroppingposted 14 years ago
I too saw it unfold on the UK news Channel. Same about the map and the whereabouts of opposing politicians. The minute I saw it I thought 'uhhhh that's not the best use of graphics I ever saw'.

Whether or not Sarah Palin intended it to be interpreted as a map for target practice (and I don't think she or her team did for one minute) - there's no denying that's it's a very subjective image - as well as irresponsible to have used it. The words and image together ... how come no one said 'errr wait a minute guys - you do know what this looks like right??'

All the same - a tragedy for all involved and nothing that's going to be forgotten too easily.
reply report
85
Sufidreamerposted 14 years ago
Some great dialogue here, folks - it is good to see that most people can put political allegiances aside in the face of such a tragedy.

I saw the interviews with Sheriff Dupnik, and he comes across as a thoroughly decent, thoughtful man - that is the America that we came to respect.

Speaking as an outsider, the news that we see coming out of the US is indeed vitriolic and panders to extremes, so I hope that this will force politicians and the media take a look at themselves. If you cut out the centrist, moderate voices, you take away any chance of reasoned compromise.

Our thoughts are with Congresswoman Gifford and the families of the victims of this tragedy.
reply report
82
Elena.posted 14 years ago
I agree that the media feed the frenzy. I don't agree that the media are "culpable".

When is anyone going to take some personal responsibility in al this madness?

The media add fuel to the fire, the media do not go up to a podium to point targets to people! OK, some media do. HAHA

So regardless of the media's feeding the frenzy, I don't quite see, ever, any individual citizen blaming their incendiary hate-speech inclinations for any of this. In my opinion, anyone who ever clapped their hands to this inflaming discourse is equally responsible.

Enough is enough with "I just said this, and it's a free country and it's all in the name of free speech".

The media add fuel to the fire, but it's about time some responsible citizenship try and throw some water to it, instead of adding even more fuel. Please.
reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
When her father was asked if she had any enemies he responded, "Yeah, the whole Tea Party". I would be interested to hear his explanation of this statement when he is able to give it. Were these just the words of a distraught father looking for answers, or was he aware of some existing threat?
reply report
74
travel_man1971posted 14 years ago
This is a tragedy of the nation. I hope the senator recovers soon. My prayers for her and others who were wounded.
reply report
1. 60
  tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Uhhh she's a Congresswoman
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe he was referring to Ted Stevens.
  reply report
60
jantamayaposted 14 years ago
I'm infinitely sad. Hope for Gabrielle Giffords that she stays allive...
Does somebody know if ever a woman did such killing like the last one in Arizona?
I'm not accusing the men, but it seems to be a male problem. Maybe?
reply report
1. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Gerald Ford's would-be assassin comes to mind.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Squeaky Fromme?
  reply report
0
ralwusposted 14 years ago
All killers have an agenda/motive. All have some form of belief that drives them linked to bedrock and the first dividing cell. It is human nature. For some it is me against them. Why can't we just douse the flame and let the truth of this matter unfold? What good does it do here to even suppose or fish for a reason. Even M D Chapman had his reasons for murdering John Lennon as did J W Booth in murdering Abe Lincoln, and Charles Whitman at the University of Texas Aug. 1, 1966.

The truth will come out soon enough, so please, I ask, quit adding fuel to all this political hatred.
reply report
71
Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago
Live NYT Blog on Arizona shootings"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011 … target-map
reply report
75
Jeff Berndtposted 14 years ago
Look, this terrible tragedy was nobody's fault but the person (or persons) who did the crime. (Apparently the police are looking for a possible accomplice.) Me saying "So-and-so deserves to be shot" doesn't make me responsible when someone else shoots So-and-so.
But.

Anyone who has said, wore a shirt that said, or carried a sign that said, "It's time to water the tree," guys, this is exactly what watering the tree looks like in real life. Is this what you wanted? Is it? Is it still time to water the tree? Will you proudly wear your t-shirt or carry your sign knowing that some guy (who may not even be remotely close to your politics) 'watered the tree' and now a little girl, a Federal judge, and four other people are dead.

It remains your right to call for 'second amendment solutions.' This is what they look like. Still want them?
reply report
1. 58
  Stump Parrishposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The second guy has been cleared in this as of now. It has come to light that the shooter recently passed an FBI back ground check and was permitted to buy a gun. If the Homeland Securities safe gaurds cant even stop a lunatic like this from arming himself, why are we to assume they can do anything their job requires?
  
  Of course it could be that Arizona is selling guns to any and all white people who apply. BI'm gonna go find out if that was one of the new laws passed in that state's efforts to exterminate the brown people. sry for getting off subject, cant help it, I'm a tree hugging, solar powered, peace loving, all natural, bleeding heart liberal.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, turns out the 2nd guy was the cab driver who drove the shooter to the Safeway.
  reply report
71
Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago
Police Try To Piece Together Ariz. Shooter's Motive

by NPR Staff and Wires

Saturday's shooting has prompted outrage and speculation about the possible motive of the man who allegedly opened fire in the Safeway parking lot.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said there's reason to believe Loughner has "a mental issue" and described him as "unhinged."

"As we understand it, there have been law enforcement contacts with the individual where he made threats to kill," Dupnik said during a news conference Saturday evening. But he wouldn't say who those threats were aimed at.

Dupnik called Arizona the capital of anger, hatred and bigotry, and he said unbalanced people can respond to that in dangerous ways.

Giffords, who was re-elected after a bruising fight against a Tea Party candidate had her office vandalized on the eve of her vote in support of the health care overhaul. She herself warned months ago that the verbal assaults were beyond the pale and could have dire results.

Loughner apparently was the source of six videos posted on YouTube in recent months. The most recent one, titled "America: Your Last Memory In A Terrorist Country!" shows a hunched-over man in a hooded sweatshirt burning an American flag in a desert landscape. The soundtrack is a song called "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor."

Other videos have long, written tirades against government, currency and grammar.

In one, he says, "The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution."

In another, he says "I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar."

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/09/132780010 … h-20110109
reply report
1. 83
  habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What is this nut's hangup with grammar? Dang, I'm an English teacher, and even I don't take grammar THAT seriously! lol
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  He doesn't really care about grammar. Check out his writing. It's practically word-salad.
  reply report
54
mememyposted 14 years ago
did you say guns or puns? cause i don't now
reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
So what are we being told to see in this case?
reply report
1. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  From the very start of this thread it was the obligatory mentioning of the Tea Party.
  
  No facts, no hints, no nothing coming from the media just a hubpage liberal bringing up the Tea Party.
  
  Followed soon after by the Queen of hate lovemychris blaming conservatives and republicans.
  
  What are you told to see?
  
  Everything is the fault of the Tea Party, all hate comes from the Tea Party. Its never that the democrats govern against the will of the majority its the Tea Parties fault.
  
  Shilling for a lost cause.
  
  By the way MM, misogyny can and does affect Republican females.
  reply report
71
Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago
Here's the latest news on the Giffords shooting:

Court documents filed in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix indicated that evidence seized from Mr. Loughner’s home showed that he had planned to kill Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was in critical condition with a gunshot wound to the head. Found in Mr. Loughner’s home, F.B.I. special agent Tony M. Tayler Jr. said in an affidavit supporting the charges, was an envelope with the handwritten words, "I planned ahead," "My assassination," and "Giffords."

The details of the envelope were not disclosed.

The court documents say that Mr. Loughner purchased the semiautomatic Glock pistol used at the shooting at Sportsman’s Warehouse in Tucson on Nov. 30. The documents also indicate that the suspect had previous contact with the congresswoman. Found in the same safe was a letter from Ms. Giffords thanking Mr. Loughner for attending a 2007 “Congress on Your Corner” event, like the one she was holding on Saturday morning when she was attacked.

Along with being accused of deliberating trying to take Ms. Giffords’ life, Mr. Loughner was charged with the killing and attempted killing of four United States government officials, among them U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, who was killed; a congressional aide, Gabriel Zimmerman, who was also killed; and two congressional aides, Pamela Simon and Ron Barber, who were wounded.

The authorities released 911 tapes of the minutes after the shooting in which caller after caller, many of them out of breath, dialed in to report multiple shots being fired, and people falling, too many to count.

The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, who traveled to Tucson from Washington to oversee the shooting investigation at President Obama’s request, said at a news conference that an intensive investigation was underway to determine ``why someone would commit such a heinous act and whether anyone else was involved.”

Early Sunday, the authorities released a photograph taken from surveillance video of a possible accomplice in the shooting. But the man later contacted sheriff’s deputies, who determined that he was a taxi driver who dropped the suspect at the mall where the shooting took place and then entered the supermarket with him when he did not have sufficient change.

Ms. Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, remained in critical condition on Sunday but has been able to respond to simple commands, and her doctors described themselves as “cautiously optimistic.”

At a news conference at University Medical Center, the congresswoman’s doctors said that she was the only one of the victims of Saturday’s shooting to remain in critical care at the hospital. They said that she was lucky to be alive but would not speculate about the degree of her recovery, which they said could take months or longer.

“Overall this is about as good as it’s going to get,” said Dr. Peter Rhee, the chief of trauma surgery at University Medical Center, where Ms. Giffords was brought by helicopter from the shooting scene outside a supermarket north of Tucson. “When you get shot in the head and a bullet goes through your brain, the chances of you living are very small and the chances of you waking up and actually following commands is even much smaller than that.”

Dr. G. Michael Lemole Jr., the chief of neurosurgery, who operated on Ms. Giffords, said that the bullet had traveled through the entire left side of her brain “from back to front” but said that it had not crossed from one side of the brain to the other, nor did it pass through some critical areas that would further diminish her chances of recovery.

The doctors said Ms. Giffords, 40, was in a medically induced coma but that they had awoken her several times to check her responsiveness. While the doctors described themselves as extremely pleased with the progress of her treatment, they cautioned that it was too soon to make any predictions. “This is very early in our course,” Dr. Rhee said. “We don’t know what’s going to happen, what her deficits will be in the future or anything like that.”

The doctors said that brain swelling and other complications still posed large risks in the days ahead.

Darci Slaten, a spokeswoman for the medical center, said the congresswoman’s husband, the astronaut Mark E. Kelly, was with her, as were her parents and two stepchildren.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/po … ds.html?hp
reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
There is valid reason to mention the Tea Party.
Giffords defeated a Tea Party candidate.
Said Tea Party candidate invited his supporters and shoot a gun with him.
Sarah Palin had Giffords in her "crosshairs" for destruction.
She may not have meant it literally, but it's more than just coincidence that Ms. Giffords won reelection and then got SHOT with a gun.
The key votes/issues Gifford supports/doesn't support (pro US healthcare bill, anti the controversial Arizona immigration law) happen to be the opposite of the Tea Party's agenda.

However, what I read says the shooter is NOT officially connected with the Tea Party.
He does appear to be a solo-operating deranged nutcase.
MM
P.S. Misogyny can and does affect all kinds of women everywhere. You know what my point was.
reply report
1. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "P.S. Misogyny can and does affect all kinds of women everywhere. You know what my point was."
  
  No, I don't know what your point was.
  
  You have said derogatory things about Sarah Palin on threads that are filled with hatred.
  
  I have never, never seen you say any of those things were misogynistic.
  
  Only time you brought that up you clearly specified "democrat" women.
  
  This is the lock step attitude that I refer to.
  reply report
2. 71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure what "officially connected with the Tea Party" means. Giffords' opponent was a Tea Party candidate supported locally, by Sarah Palin and money from outside Arizona. There's little doubt that Loughner was exposed to the Tea Party's propaganda and may well have been influenced by it. Whatever the facts turnr out to be, this was a political assassination by a deranged individual. Somebody was trying to say Loughner is a liberal which is ludicrous.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "There's little doubt that Loughner was exposed to the Tea Party's propaganda and may well have been influenced by it"
  
  Wow, I bet millions of people have been exposed to the Tea Parties "propaganda".
  
  That logic must mean there are millions of more assassination attempts coming.
  
  Chris, is that you? Doug????
  
  Brilliant....
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who cares if the guy was influenced by the tea party rhetoric or not? It doesn't matter.
  
  But.
  
  "It's time to Water the Tree?" Well, Sunshine, this is what "Watering the Tree" looks like in the real world.
  
  "Oh, I didn't mean..."
  
  What? You didn't mean to actually spill anyone's blood? Or you didn't think that the blood of children might get spilled along with that of the patriots and tyrants? You call for a 'second amendment solution,' and you're calling for blood in the streets. You say 'it's time to water the tree,' and you're saying, "it's time to kill people to get what I want."
  
  Take a good look. And think before you say crap like that again.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure what you're babbling about.
  
  Do you have an explanation for your outburst?
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, I guess I can hold your hand through it.
  
  The Tea Party and its members may not have inspired this particular shooting. Who cares?
  
  But the tea party and its members have been advocating stuff like this shooting, every time they say, or carry a sign that says, "It's time to water the tree."
  
  I'm sure they never actually thought that it was a good idea to kill people, but killing people is exactly what those words mean. Anyone who has ever carried such a sign, worn such a t-shirt, or said "It's time to water the tree," should take a good long look at what watering the tree looks like in the real world, and think before they advocate a '2nd Amendment Solution.'
  
  Because when someone tries to implement that suggestion, people die.
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph hate to burst your bubble , but his leanings were definitely left. Tea Party suggested reading is not " Mein Kampf " and " The Communist Manifesto " . And most Tea Party people aren't atheist.This was in line with his favorites.
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Tony - let me see if I have this straight.
  
  The shooter was a raving liberal in Arizona who targeted the most liberal Congresswoman in Arizona (moderate by national standards) umm because.. I'm a bit vague abut the motive still.
  
  Ralph and I have stated our opinion that the shooter was deranged.
  
  The quarrel we have with the Tea Party is that they discuss if not actually encourage 'second amendment alternatives' to disappointments in elections. You and Jimmy are saying this doesn't qualify as a Tea Party assasination attempt, so we aren't going to discuss the violent overtones and images from the Tea Party.
  
  I don't think we have to wait until the Glock is stamped 'Property of Tea Party Express' to have this discussion. I understand why you don't want to have it. You don't want to admit the violent overtones of the Tea Party and you don't want to exclude violence as a political option.
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But Doug are not the riot police called out to most liberal rallies ? Remember Seattle and Toronto ? More tear gas is left at lib rallies then Tea Party rallies.And I challenge you Doug . name one time they gassed a tea party rally.
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Tear gas is generally used to disperse a crowd. They can't use it on a gang on oxygen in hoverrounds. They can't get away, and somebody's oxygen tank might ignite.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Mein Kampf" isn't left. It's as far right as you can get.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am puzzled and always have been puzzled by the assertion that Nazism is a "right wing" political movement. I am also puzzled by the whole "left wing - right wing" thing in the first place since the "left" and the "right" originally referred to the Legislative Assembly in Revolutionary France. The "right" were monarchists and the "left" were revolutionaries. Considering the origin of political parties in the American Revolution there is no "right" remaining in the US.
  
  If one argues that it is based on the centralization of political authority than Fascism, Nazism, Socialism and Communism are all centralized political and economic systems - hardly the recommendation of conservatism.
  
  If one supports George Washington's perception of political liberty and government than "the necessary progression is from tyranny to anarchy."
  
  Hence my puzzlement.
  
  By the way the Federal Judge killed in the shooting was a GWB appointee - does that make the shooting bipartisan?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's not at all surprising that you are puzzled.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yet another deeply insightful comment. Thanks, I now see the brilliance of your liberal feelings and will change everything I know.
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The 'Monarchy' you speak of in Revolutionary France was not just Marie Antoinette. There was a whole layer of French aristocracy who skimmed the fruits of the labors of the common man. The 'Right' then and the 'Right' now believes in protecting the nobility, the aristocracy.
  
  Case in point. Before Obama broke the logjam with the compromise, Republicans were going to stop ALL legislation from moving forward until the top 2% by income were guaranteed that their taxes would not go up.
  
  Modern monarchists.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What nobility? What aristocracy? Nobility and aristocracy were beneficiaries of the King's largess and he of their support and cooperation. You, as others like you, forget that the nobility were the governing class. Nobility and aristocracy were inherited or conferred by the king. There is no parallel in the Republic.
  
  Inherited wealth rarely lasts 3 generations - ask Anderson Cooper or the next generation of Kennedys - and that is contingent upon the actions of the heirs. Wealth is not conferred by the state but earned. We, the people, make our wealthy rich by purchasing their products and services, tickets to their movies, watch their TV shows, listen to their radio shows or attend their sporting events.
  
  In the Republic the citizen is king. No one is born into a class and remains there their entire life without making poor choices and expending efforts to do so. This is the opposite of 18th century Europe were one was born into and lived life in a class. The only time this has been the case is during slavery. Not even then were all people of African decent doomed to legally proscribed status. Immediately following the end of the Civil War Black Americans spread out across the country making forging a life for themselves free to do and be.
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "No one is born into a class and remains there their entire life "
  
  I take it you favor a steep inheritance tax to ensure the wealthiest Americans earned it by merit. My opinion is that we have a generational aristocracy of wealth.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I favor no inheritance tax at all. The property a man amasses through his effort and frugality is his to dispose of as he wishes and not the states. If he is wise his children will benefit more by his wisdom than his wealth. Wealth tends to last only as long as the heirs remain wise, frugal and industrious. If they fail in character their wealth will fail. It is as true for those born into poverty. The wise, prudent, disciplined and industrious will not remain poor nor will their heirs.
  
  Neither poverty nor wealth are produced or retained by accident - but only if one is free to enter into or escape from them.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Small change indeed.
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You know, you bring up an interesting point. The extreme "right" and the extreme "left" are virtually indistinguishable from each other. It all comes full circle in other words. A very good example would be the following: Dennis Kucinich, Congressman from Ohio, and Rand Paul. Kucinich is on the far left, Paul to the far right, but they see eye to eye on a surprising number of issues and voice several of the same concerns and show a great deal of respect to each other.
  reply report
60
mikelongposted 14 years ago
This should not become a partisan issue....and I see the typical likes of hubbers like Jim to fan the flames of political division...

The lesson to be learned here is that the formal political process we use is in place because true politics...true political fighting is bloody and violent...

While we consider ourselves to be "civilized" and able to "teaching" democracy to the globe, we are still capable of tremendous domestic destructive power.....

When all is said and done here, what will we have learned?
reply report
1. 59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The question of whether or not violence is a legitimate option in reversing the outcome of a legitimate election is NOT a partisan issue.
  
  The violent overtones of the Tea Party are under examination. Sarah Palin selected crosshairs as an icon for the Congresswoman's district. Sarah Palin called for Tea Party members to 'reload'. Sharon Angle suggested second amendment options.
  
  Righties are doing a great job of wringing their hands and being shocked and outraged. Will the GOP and the Tea Party expel the faction that embraces violence as an option? I keep asking that question and the only answer I get is that I can't ask the question.
  reply report
2. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Once again a liberal who doesn't follow threads.
  
  All the speculation as to what influenced the shooter has come from liberals.
  
  You as most liberals are unable to see past the "lets blame the Tea Party mantra".
  
  I from the outset have said this was the act of a crazy person.
  
  And if you cared to read you would know that.
  reply report
  60
  mikelongposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Typical Jim....
  
  Writing without reading what has been written....
  
  Good job...
  reply report
61
Paul Wingertposted 14 years ago
Very tragic to anyone, whether they are a politician or not. Once again, a psycho crossed the line and made the news in a big way. When I read about what he was packing, it's time to take another look at the gun control, or lack of it.
reply report
1. 59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Depends on what you mean by gun control.
  
  I'm a believer in the 2nd amendment - individuals should have the right to own guns for sport, hunting or personal protection. The government has the obligation to put reasonable restrictions on the sale of guns - to criminals & the insane. IMO, and I am not trained but I have read some of the shooters opinions - he was nutty as a fruitcake. But he had never been hospitalized or certified by an M.D. as insane. So how can you have identified the shooter as unqualified to own a gun?
  
  The biggest hot-button issue that will energize moderates against democrats is gun control. If democrats go there, it will cost them elections, and we won;t be able to address more serious problems. I'm more than willing to reconsider the point if you can show me how a law in paper would have prevented this tragedy. Perhaps the extended clip which gave the shooter a 30-round capacity without reloading. Even that would have to be properly introduced to the voters if it wasn't going to be turned into a a huge electoral liability with little real gain.
  reply report
  83
  habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Great post, Doug!
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There isn't one. No amount of legislation will ever eliminate gun crime completely. If someone really, really wants to get hold of a gun, they will do so via illegal rather than legal channels.
  
  Here in Britain we've had very strict gun control laws for about 15 years, ever since the Dunblane massacre (when a guy went on the rampage in a school, killing himself and 17 teachers/children). Has it done away with gun crime? Nope.
  
  reply report
  81
  Amanda Severnposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Guns are far harder to come by here than in the States. There's no necessity for an armed response unit to attend every little incident. Personally I'd sooner have our stricter laws in place than take the chance. Guns are everyday items in America. No-one thinks twice about owning them. Here, I hardly know anyone that has one.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horw … 06594.html
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thoughtful commentary Mr. Hughes...
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
Jim,
My point was that here on the forums I have read comments specifically about the physical attributes (or lack thereof) of Hillary Clinton. Reducing a woman -- whether she is Republican or Democrat -- solely to her sexual attractiveness, when she is in an arena in which her sexual attractiveness is irrelevant, is disrespectful and sexist. The follow-up posts made by the person who made these comments confirm his attitude.

Not quite sure what you are accusing me of vis a vis Sarah Palin. Are you saying the criticisms I have made of Mrs. Palin are misogynistic? I don't hate her because she is a woman (the definition of misogyny). I have never said anything about her physical attributes (except that she sure does flaunt them).
I hate her because of her actions. If she were a male I would still hate her.
reply report
1. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "I don't hate her because she is a woman (the definition of misogyny)."
  
  Thats right and thats why no one accused you of misogyny.
  
  Just because someone finds Hillary Clinton unattractive doesn't mean they are misogynistic.
  
  It means 1) They are observant and 2)They are correct.
  
  Your whine about misogyny was noted and dispensed with.
  reply report
  86
  mistyhorizon2003posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just a thought, and in all fairness based on the comment from Mighty Mom and this comment from you Jim, surely you have to acknowledge that it would be extremely unusual for a male politician to be judged by their 'Unattractiveness', so much so that although I am not a follower, nor do I know much about Hilary Clinton not being from the US, I have to acknowledge that it is a fair point to make by Mighty Mom. Judge on things that are relevant, not on physical attributes (or lack of as the case may be)!
  
  Peace, just my thoughts.
  reply report
  67
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How about The Shiny One? He is quite handsome, I bet it did play its role for the female part of electorate. McCain is certainly no match.
  reply report
  86
  mistyhorizon2003posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Misha, I could always count on you to come back with a cheeky response. I wouldn't change you for the world though
  reply report
  67
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Love ya too Cindy. xo
  reply report
2. 60
  DTR0005posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Great point Mighty Mom. I could care less how my representative looks - male or female. No one hates Sarah Palin because she is attractive. People dislike her because she's a dope - and God bless those who were born on the back side of the Bell Curve in the smarts department. It's not their fault. A lot of not-so-bright people are "smart" enough to know not to put themselves in the fray - a fray where they are clearly outmatched.
  Sarah's problem is that she doesn't REALIZE she's a dope. Literally over night, she became America's sweetheart. Suddenly, in Sarah's mind, what she had to say became "important." And the media enforced that idea - still does. See if overnight someone tells you you're a God, well then you start to behave accordingly, you start to believe it yourself. But when we all learned that her opinions were not better informed than those of the local school crossing guard, we got a little worried.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm... do ya think Obama and Pelosi realize they're dopes too? Or maybe they do and just don't care....
  
  Very worrisome indeed.
  reply report
  76
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They have actual government jobs. They have to make actual decisions. They're not professional pundits.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Palin had an actual job too. And was immediately and heavily verbally assaulted quite often even then.
  
  I wonder.....Rahm Emanuel quit his job, in hopes of running for Office in a state where he's not eligible.
  
  And there's talk of Pelosi quitting.
  
  I wonder if they'll be blasted for that like Palin got blasted for "quitting"....
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Palin had an actual job too."
  Yeah, but she quit halfway through.
  
  "I wonder if they'll be blasted for that like Palin got blasted for "quitting"...."
  
  Well, Rahm wasn't elected by the people, so I consider him to be just like anyone else who leaves a job to pursue other interests. If Pelosi quits before her term is up, it'll be just as bad as when Palin quit halfway through her term.
  
  But maybe we should wait until she actually quits before we condemn her for quitting?
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No fair using facts and logic, LL!
  reply report
  76
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sad, but true. Facts are just a liberal conspiracy, I guess, against the truth.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They don't have "actual government jobs".
  
  They have been elected not hired.
  
  If that were the case they would be gone now.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So true!
  
  Jim, as usual, you have a great way of cutting to the chase, gettin' to the nitty-gritty, hittin' the nail on the head, all that.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They are a little confused about what facts are.
  
  I thought I would help.
  
  I'm helpful in that regard.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  haha yes you are.
  Good luck, though. Your task is a tough one.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The task is an impossible one.
  
  There is no sense in actual conversation when the liberal is involved.
  
  It eventually turns into a whinefest.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Or an attack-fest, after they run outta cheese with the whine.
  
  The government these days gives out a lot of free cheese.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Talking with right-wing nutjobs is much easier. Watch today's episode of Glenn Beck to see what 100% of them will claim to be their own opinions tomorrow.
  
  Saves a lot of time.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh come on! Watching Rachel Maddow would be just as bad, or actually worse. That woman is so far-left-wing the only reason her body's upright is 'cause it's braced by that chip on her shoulder. Same with most of the liberal media folk.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  that guy Keith Olberman is pretty bad when it comes to left-wing rhetoric
  report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "There is no sense in actual conversation when the liberal is involved.
  
  It eventually turns into a whinefest."
  
  Translation: Conversations with people who disagree with me make me uncomfortable, because they don't agree with me. Rather than reexamining my arguments (or my positions) I'm going to assume that those who disagree with me are deficient in some way. That's the only reason anyone would not believe what I believe, isn't it?
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well Sarah has a bacherlors degree in television marketing/production, experience as a beauty queen, the mayor or a small village, and was Govenor of Alaska - for a while. And look... no one asked you to like the President or the former Speaker of the House, but don't ignore their credentials. I don't have the credentials to be mayor or govenor of ANYWHERE, but then again, Sarah doesn't have the credentials to talk about or rather talk "down" health insurance reform and soley based on "moral" and politcal grounds - I do. And she has made that her "cause celebre" among other things. And I have made it mine as well. But I don't go around telling Sarah P how to be a mayor or a part-term govenor or even a former VP Candidate. I just shoot holes in her silly rhetoric and empty prose. We all have our areas of expertise and we tend to comment on topics we feel comfortable discussing with others. It's just that Sarah P's areas of expertise appear to be a bottomless well of knowledge until you draw the bucket up and find it empty. She draws so much ire from the Left because the Right has made Sarah their ersatz telephone to the Almighty... health care reform, universal coverage has been made a moral and religious issue - Are you kidding me?
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article … g_Rhetoric

Unfortunately, Loughner is not the only wacko known to bring guns (legally purchased) to political rallies...
reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
Thanks for the assist, Misty!

Meanwhile, the deflection away from any influence or involvement of the Tea Party is taking shape nicely over on Fox News. See article below from Dr. Keith (co-author with guess who -- Mr. Beck!).
But hey, if recognition of the shooter's mental illness can bring back support of mental health services at the federal, state or local levels, that's a good thing...

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/0 … l-illness/

Re: mental health service realities. Sad.
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Sectio … tID=107945
reply report
1. 83
  donotfearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  You better believe it....I work in mental health and we have a waiting list for the state hospital in our area! Go figure, can you believe it? We had staff cuts that has put a tremendous amount of pressure on us crisis screeners. Bad thing about is, in our area, no funds are there to staff and run a crisis holding unit for those who are waiting to get into the hospital. So while the psychotic patients are waiting for a hospital bed, who keeps them? One of our counties will hold them in jail, another refuses, so we have to court order them into the E.R. It's a shame.
  reply report
60
sligobayposted 14 years ago
Good point Amanda. If there were no guns ther would be other weapons of violence. "Stirring up" trouble with words is inciting a riot or inciting to violence which is not protected speech under the First Amendment. I have read these posts with interest but without response. I have learned 'restraint of pen and tongue', Mighty Mom.
This violent murderous rampage doesn't raise a Second Amendment issue but rather a First Amendment issue. The metaphor of political wars, battles, hit lists, targets,'taking someone down', and the like have created the pitched 'battlefront' invoking the not so glorious history of Civil War. We are voyeurs enamored by news of violence and hatred and fear and courage. We wallow in pity through empathy and self-pity. We encourage irreconcilable controversy rather than encourage dialogue and compromise.
We are all responsible for this violence which has claimed the lives of six, most sadly, the life of a nine year old child, Christina-Taylor Green, who was born on the day that the World Trade Centers were destroyed. She loved ballet and was newly elected to the student council of her elementary school.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Arizona-Shootin … an-Gifford is my Hub that investigates the carnage of this catastrophe. Self- restraint, social restraint and political restraint are the solution going forward. No one can change the past- but all of us can learn from it.
reply report
76
Karandaposted 14 years ago
There was a similar incident in Australia 14 years ago. They called it the Port Arthur Massacre where 35 people were killed in a random shoot out. The government took notice and took control. Stricter enforcement of gun ownership has meant the chances of this happening again have been lessened. Surely this is a better outcome.
reply report
63
prettydarkhorseposted 14 years ago
I watched and read the news just today, was busy with football, shame on me!

I didn't read all the comments here. I was sad when I saw all the people who died and still struggling to extend their lives.

Life is precious and the life of the 9 years is old is the same as the 60 plus who died or the life of the congresswoman.

I think we can become a hero by being vigilant, let we be concern for our friends, relatives and those we know who are challenged mentally and we try to help them by talking to proper authorities as the guy I think has some run ins with the law, school etc and some friends who affirmed that he is really unstable. As parents let us be vigilant and as much as we can to be on the watch about our children. We should listen to our children telling them about their friends etc.

And we should stop instigating or having talks/comments which can ignite unbalanced minds.
There is what we call responsible democracy.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Shutting down the freedom of speech isn't the solution, unless you mean the freedom of too-liberal speech. Neither is shutting down the rights of patriotic Americans to carry weapons for their own protection and the protection of others. Shutting down the ability of mentally unstable people to get access to guns IS one solution.
  reply report
  76
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Let's only forbid things I would never do."
  
  Why am I not the least bit surprised that this double-standard wish is coming from you?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You're not surprised because you know I speak common sense.
  I, in turn, am not surprised at your adverse reaction to any opinion of mine including your subsequent insult to my mental stability.
  I'm so honored to be the continuing subject of your attention, Jason.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Very astute, LL. And somehow, Brenda doesn't see that this: "Shutting down the freedom of speech isn't the solution, unless you mean the freedom of too-liberal speech." is the quintessence of hypocrisy.
  reply report
  76
  Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh my, I actually agree with you on this...well, the part about denying mentally unstable people guns
  reply report
  76
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That only means she doesn't consider herself mentally unstable.
  reply report
  60
  Woman Of Courageposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda, I am agreeing with the solution of denying mentally unstable people guns. I was viewing CNN news a few minutes after this terrible tragedy occured.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "I am agreeing with the solution of denying mentally unstable people guns."
  
  Absolutely, this is a good idea.
  
  But you can only deny a mentally unstable person a gun if you know that he's mentally unstable. If he hasn't been diagnosed, then legally, he's just as stable as you are or I am.
  
  Should anyone who wants to buy a gun be required to submit to a psychological evaluation? I don't think so.
  
  Should anyone who buys a gun have to make his mental health file available, assuming he has one? I'm also uncomfortable with that.
  
  The devil is in those details.
  reply report
63
prettydarkhorseposted 14 years ago
what I am saying is that the power of the family in the life of the youth, he is a young adult and as I was watching the news five years ago he was already had trouble with laws and school. His thoughts are weird..
What I was saying about responsible democracy is about speech - commenting, pointing fingers, irresponsible comments, - let us be civil people.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed.
  Tell that to Jason, wouldja?
  
  I think he goes by the rule of it's okay to insult/attack someone but they're not supposed to "hit" back. That carp started in our schools years ago; teachers punished the kid who defended him/herself instead of the instigator. No tattling! I recall seeing a sign posted like that in the school cafeteria when I visited on grandparents' day.....what a crock of twisted logic our children are being taught!
  reply report
  76
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, I don't believe that at all.
  
  However, the kid who "first hit" (as in physical assault) should be punished. Punching someone who insults you is not defending yourself.
  
  What's twisted is equating verbal assaults with physical ones.
  reply report
2. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not so sure his thoughts were weird......maybe he just got so frustrated with the Constitution being twisted and no way to resolve the issues, I dunno. We don't know everything about this case, and I don't know what policies the Congresswoman upholds, but that Judge apparently was known for having given citizens' rights to a group of illegals. Nothing Constitutional about that. But the Judge supposedly wasn't the guy's target....
  Who knows!?
  I just know that the current liberalism of our society is enough to tempt a saint to cuss and a sane person to be tempted to radicalism. And I'm not talking about the Left (they're already radical-activist-minded), I'm talking about the Right (who usually have a lot of patience, but are being pushed up against the wall big-time these days). Thank God the Right usually depend on God to help them maintain control, because it takes that much strength to not strike back in return at the attacks of the Left.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "...maybe he just got so frustrated with the Constitution being twisted and no way to resolve the issues, I dunno."
  
  Wait, what!?
  
  Are you saying that you can understand how he can go from frustration with his elected officials to "I'm gonna kill me a Congresswoman?"
  
  Perhaps you should look into anger management classes.
  
  There are exactly two reasons to visit violence upon anyone: 1) he's trying to harm you 2) he's trying to harm another person.
  
  Anything else, whether it's calling you names, swearing at you, blaspheming, or voting for a policy you disagree with, is not sufficient cause for you to do violence against another person.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Some people have a breaking point. I'm saying we don't know for sure what all he went through to reach the point he did, or if he's just always been mentally unstable.
  
  Like....the businessmen who committed suicide when the stock market crashed years ago, and other examples of humanity gone haywire. Was the fact that they lost money a reason to commit suicide? Were they mentally unstable all along, all their lives? Was the fact that that guy recently who shot up the school board 'cause his wife had been fired, reason enough for him to shoot up the school board? I don't think so at all! I'm just saying we have no way of judging who's gonna go off-kilter, who's gonna reach their breaking point.
  
  At the same time, we CAN judge SOME incidents by common sense. America is being put under tyranny. Yes, tyranny from the current Administration. It has put laws into effect that were not warranted nor wanted by correct-thinking people, it has allowed a man whose birthplace isn't even validated, whose patriotism is under a huge question mark, whose allegiance is under an even bigger question mark, to spout authority where he should have no authority; we're being told we must bow down to things no one should have to bow down to; we're being falsely accused if we're conservative; we're being told we must accept the unacceptable, including backroom deals involving our healthcare and fines if we don't do as they say! And those things, among many others, are reasons that might drive anyone not only to tears, but to anger and possibly to violence if they don't have strong self-control. So, the freedom of speech to speak out about those things should never be taken away; matter of fact, our Congresspeople should never dismiss any request from a constituent. I say that in order to open up the discussion also about security for elected Officials, which has been brought up in the media already concerning this case. And I say if Congresspeople make the taxpayers pay for personal security, then postal workers and BMV clerks and all government officials should have personal security handed to each of them! Not only that, but ALL citizens, whether they're government workers or not! Because, that little nine-year-old girl sure wasn't protected! As sad as this story is, it's drawing attention to the supposed "status" of elected officials once again, instead of the security of ALL citizens. And this is the result of all the carp that comes from the Left! The Left presents ideas that should never be presented, and then they whine in fear when a member of theirs is attacked, when in fact ALL citizens are becoming more and more susceptible to terrorist action both in and out of the mainstream public because of the soft hand with which outsiders are being dealt with in Obama's "tolerant" society dream-world.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "At the same time, we CAN judge SOME incidents by common sense."
  This is the last thing in your post that has any bearing on the real world. Seriously, Brenda, maybe you should see a psychologist.
  
  I get that you disagree with, well, pretty much everything President Obama wants to get done, and that's cool. But seriously, some elected officials have passed legislation you don't like, so of course some people might resort to violence?
  
  Seriously. Get help.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You should get help yourself, with reading and comprehension! Especially in learning to relate to the writings of people whose opinions differ from yours.
  
  Seriously.
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda -
  
  You are entitled to think Obama was born on Mars if you want.
  
  I am entitled to think you are delusional.
  
  You are entitled to think the Obama administration is 'tyrany'.
  
  Without any evidence to support that, I'm inclined to call that paranoid.
  
  Most of the rest of your post is at best - incoherent. That's me being charitable.
  
  Please, tell us you don't own a gun.
  reply report
  83
  habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I own several guns, Doug, and I'm a deadeye shot, too!
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Me too! (But not handguns with magazines.
  reply report
  83
  habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Me, neither!
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Revolver shooters tend to be better shots. It is either the solid frame of the revolver, the knowledge of a limited number of rounds or both that makes them better shots.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Income being distributed upward in an economy so severely distorted by a rabidly interventionist government does not change the fact that the government is engaged in that redistribution. I said nothing at all about the direction of the redistribution but I do not whine in envy of those whose effort has resulted in the accumulation of greater wealth. My complaint is with those who have done nothing at all to receive the taken property of others from the hands of a redistribution-ist government and with said government. Set the market place free.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's none of your business whether I do or not!
  
  Please tell me YOU don't even own a pea-shooter, much less a real gun.!
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Especially in learning to relate to the writings of people whose opinions differ from yours."
  
  I don't mind when someone's opinion differs from mine. That's cool and the gang.
  
  When people say things that aren't true and believe them to be fact, that's delusional.
  
  You said:"it has allowed a man whose birthplace isn't even validated, whose patriotism is under a huge question mark, whose allegiance is under an even bigger question mark, to spout authority where he should have no authority; "
  Now, I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that you were talking about President Obama. If you were talking about the President, though, his birthplace has in fact been validated. He's a natural-born US citizen, born in the State of Hawaii. If you believe otherwise, that's not just a difference of opinion, It's delusion. You don't merely disagree with me, you're just wrong. You're just as wrong as if you had said 2+2=22.
  You also say he should have no authority. Well, the man was elected president by a clear majority of the people, and won the electoral college even more handily. Therefore, he has the consent of the governed, and has all of the authority of the office he holds.
  Clearly you think President Obama is a bad president. I think he's doing okay. That's a difference of opinion.
  But if you think his authority is not legitimate, that's not a difference of opinion. That's called being wrong.
  reply report
83
habeeposted 14 years ago
His thoughts were weird. How do you go from Karl Marx to Ayn Rand? His messages were totally rambling and made no sense. His professor and classmates said he would yell out totally incoherent comments during class.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting. Thanks habee.
  Do you have any data on what he yelled out?
  And in response to what?
  (umm...if it was college, the professors themselves often put forth some really outrageous remarks...)
  reply report
  83
  habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They didn't say, Brenda. But the professor showed a message he received form a 50-year-old woman who was in the same class. She expressed her concern that Loughner would show up to class one day with a gun.
  
  Apparently, he wasn't responding to outrageous remarks. Whatever he was yelling was off-the-wall and had no bearing on the lesson/lecture/discussion.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I suppose the whole story might emerge later.
  
  At any rate, I'm sure the mother and family of that 9-year-old girl, and all the families of the victims, need grieving time, and time for the survivors to heal.
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda, most people go to college to have their minds challenged. If you go to college and expect to have your peers and your professors preach what you want to hear, then maybe you're better off going some place safe like Oral Roberts University and study something "real safe" like Business Accounting. If you aren't up to being challenged to your core beliefs, then higher education isn't really your gig.
  In undergrad and grad school, I was taught by a Catholic nuns, atheists, guys from China, mad Marxists, and conservative capitalists that would probably make Tea Partiers look "liberal." That's the idea behind higher education - exposing the student to new ideas, new people, and new ways of thinking. It develops some degree of tolerance, at least in theory. But then again, it's pretty doubful that any college instructor spouted the polictical venom (both Left and Right guilty) that you read here.
  If our shooter got pissed off at the local community college where he attended class because of something an instructor said to him, what would he have done in the real world? Yeah, we got the answer sadly...
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Was that "mad Marxist" a teacher in my America?
  
  Then he/she should've never been at any teacher's desk in America.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda, the United States is not your private property.
  reply report
71
Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago
From the Daily Beast

(For those who deny the influence of inflammatory TV and Radio talk show hosts, right or left, on sick people like Loughran)

Cut off from the world by his iPhone earbuds and hoodie, neighbors and classmates say gunman Jared Lee Loughner was a deeply disturbed young man who'd been wandering the neighborhood with an especially strange look in his eyes in recent days. But is he a calculating killer on a political mission—or a desperate young man battling severe mental illness? His rambling Internet missives likely come from the writings of the Milwaukee-based, far right activist David Wynn Miller. Miller tells The Daily Beast/Newsweek "I expect he's been on my website… He's just repeating things I've had up on my site the past 11 years." Eve Conant, Claire Martin and Masada Siegel report on the 22-year-old's "disconnection from reality." Loughner has been charged with five felony counts and is due in court on Monday at 2 p.m. MST. He may seek representation from the Unabomber's lawyer.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/?om_rid=Ns … aRB8XGAu7E
reply report
71
Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago
NYTimes--Arizona Talk Radio Hosts Deny Connection With Shooting Spree

Phone calls poured in to stations across the AM dial to denounce Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, who said at a news conference over the weekend that Arizona had become “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry” and that local TV and radio hosts should do some “soul-searching.” “I would say that his comments have incited stupidity around the world,” said Garret Lewis, host of The Morning Ritual on 790 AM. “People have the image now that we’re a bunch of racist bigots and there are shootouts in the streets. Again he has absolutely no proof that any of this is true.”

Steve, a caller on the Jon Justice Show on 104.1 FM, said Mr. Dupnik’s statements “showed him for the buffoon he is.” Later, a called named Lee called the sheriff “a blithering idiot.” Caller after caller came up with their own colorful descriptions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11 … r=1&hp
reply report
74
Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago
Hmmm..sad USA
reply report
71
Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago
This Moment in Arizona
The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others in Arizona holds a number of lessons for those who live in the state. It’s a time of shock and sadness, and in the words of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a time to do some “soul searching.” Neal Conan talks with Arizonans about how to make sense of Saturday’s tragedy.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2011/01/1 … 110110#one
reply report
71
Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago
Tombstone Politics

If it turns out that a poisonous variant of free speech is partially to blame for the shootings in Tucson, we will most certainly be struck by the fact that Gabrielle Giffords was seen last week in Congress, reading part of the Constitution that allows an American citizen to say just about anything.

But as Rep. Giffords herself also pointed out, in March when she was a target because of her vote on health care reform, free speech does have a cost.

“We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” said Giffords. “Crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences.”

Giffords had already felt a blunt edge of opponents’ rage — a window in her Tucson office was shattered after she voted to expand health care for other Americans.

The court filings late Sunday offered few clues on why a deranged man would open fire on a public servant meeting the public, killing six, gravely wounding Ms. Giffords. Was it because she was a Jew? A woman? A Democrat? A member of Congress? An advocate of health care? A face of government in a state where anti-government sentiment is the early bird special? All we know is that the 22-year-old man charged with the shootings, Jared Lee Loughner, wrote notes about a planned “assassination.”....More here--

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … p;emc=tya1
reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
How about instead of focusing on denying mentally unstable people guns (which is a no brainer and already a law -- but imperfectly enforced, obviously), let's focus on providing mentally unstable people help instead of cutting essential services.
reply report
1. 71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's a radical idea!
  reply report
2. 59
  logic,commonsenseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How many people knew this person was unstable and was a danger, yet did nothing or said nothing until after the tragedy?
  Where were his parents, his family? Did they not know about his problems?
  We need more people to have a backbone and stand up and say, 'somethings wrong'! Instead too many are beaten down by the PC crowd and won't say anything for fear they might be attacked.
  I report potentially dangerous situations to law enforcement so they may deal with it, I don't ignore it and hope it will go away.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "How many people knew this person was unstable and was a danger, yet did nothing or said nothing until after the tragedy?"
  
  Being mentally unstable isn't a crime. There's really nothing anybody can do or could have done until a crime is committed. Sure, his friends can say, "Dude, I think you should seek help."
  
  But some guy off the street telling the gun store guy, "Don't sell this guy a gun; he's nuts?"
  
  I mean, even if you go to the cops and say, "There's this guy in my class who's acting all weird and saying strange stuff that doesn't make any sense, and he might have a gun," that's not really enough to send the cops over to his apartment. And I'm not sure I want to live in a country where it would be.
  reply report
3. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Lets see, the University he attended had several complaints about his scary behavior.
  
  He had run ins with the law on campus.
  
  He was kicked out for being a whack-job.
  
  Why didn't the institute of higher learning do a little more?
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Why didn't the institute of higher learning do a little more?"
  Like what, exactly?
  
  It's not a crime to be an oddball. It's not a crime to be mentally unstable. What do you suggest his institute of higher learning should have done? Serious question.
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
I wish I could claim it, Ralph (if the label 'radical' fits, wear it, I always say!).
The deflection credit goes to Fox News (which I cited already in this thread). Although (IMHO) a thinly veiled attempt to draw attention away from "crosshairs" and "don't retreat/reload" etc., it is true that
a) Loughner is mentally ill
and
b) The crisis in available mental health services in this country is not something we can afford to ignore.
People die due to lack of health care, but people like Loughner KILL due to lack of mental health care!!!
reply report
1. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "The deflection credit goes to Fox News (which I cited already in this thread). Although (IMHO) a thinly veiled attempt to draw attention away from "crosshairs" and "don't retreat/reload" etc.,"
  
  You are aware by now that the Democrats used similar crosshair/Bullseye in the 2004 election aren't you?
  
  Or how about Obama during his Presidential campaign saying
  "If they bring a knife we bring a gun"?
  
  Do you know what all that means?
  
  Nothing, just like Sara Palins map and any other comment made by a politician.
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
I wholeheartedly agree that when you see something wrong you should try to take action and get the person help.
I don't know where you live, but here in California, where I live, it's like trying to penetrate Fort Knox to get someone admitted to a psych facility. The system is set up to keep people OUT unless they are a CLEAR danger to themselves or others. It is a big stretch from yelling out incoherent things in a classroom to being 5150 eligible.
Where were this person's family? Well, at 22 he is an adult, which makes it even harder to commit him against his will.

I agree that people probably do fear getting attacked if they try to take on a violently mental ill person.

However, I strenuously DISAGREE that this is the result of being "beaten down by the PC crowd." That is a ludicrous statement. PC crowd? What PC crowd? Do you mean people who prefer HP or Dell computers to Macs? I mean truly, that interpretation has about as much relevance as the idea that political correctness is responsible for holding people back from helping a struggling mentally ill person.

BTW, alerting law enforcement is not always effective, either. They are quite limited in what they can (or will) do, as well.
reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
Ah, but the difference is, you will not hear Rachel Maddow viewers spouting her words as gospel truth. Rachel Maddow is not the liberal messiah, self-proclaimed or otherwise. She is a news commentator and people who watch her know that. Her liberal slant is just that: her slant.
She does not hold herself out as a "reporter" of news.
There's a difference. Thinking people understand that, which is why there are no "Maddowheads" like there are "dittoheads."
reply report
1. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ... so you agree that if I kill someone in your name that you should go to jail?
  reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago
I'm not saying that the guy in this case had any good reason for what he did. Not at all! I'm just saying that some people have a breaking point. And rightful free speech cannot be blamed for bringing them to that breaking point, while wrongful free speech can be blamed. There is "right" and there is "wrong". People are able to tell the difference. But the new liberality of those in charge of our Nation is trying to change that entire concept. And being quite successful in the minds of those who are so willingly accepting of it, for whatever personal reason they have....
reply report
1. 75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "There is "right" and there is "wrong". People are able to tell the difference."
  Yes. For example, it's wrong to threaten violence to get your way politically.
  
  "And rightful free speech cannot be blamed for bringing them to that breaking point, while wrongful free speech can be blamed."
  I don't know, I don't see how some Tea Partiers' wrongful free speech ("It's time to water the tree") can be blamed for this terrible tragedy. Not blamed.
  
  But those who say such things should take a look at this tragedy, and realize that this is what "watering the tree" looks like in the real world.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know what that phrase refers to. "Watering the tree"? Where did it come from, and how does it relate to this discussion?
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Are you being deliberately disingenuous?
  
  You mean you've never seen this sort of thing:
  in the past two years?
  
  In case you don't know what the sign is talking about, it's a quote from one of Tom Jefferson's letters:
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
  
  "It's time to Water the Tree" might as well be the motto of The Tea Party movement, when you consider how many of its members have sported those signs, T-shirts and bumper-stickers.
  
  (My apologies to those of you who have actually studied American History)
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  watering a tree of liberty means NOT killing people.
  
  just for the record.
  
  I view my discussions on Hubpages, while largely fruitless, as an attempt to water a tree of liberty.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "watering a tree of liberty means NOT killing people.
  
  just for the record. "
  
  Um, what? Look at Tom Jefferson's actual words: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."
  
  Words mean things.
  
  Here's some context for you. He was writing about the Whiskey Rebellion, and saying basically, that "Hey, every now and then, spirited people are going to rebel."
  
  Interestingly enough in the same letter, he also says, "The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive."
  
  I find this bit to be ever so apt.
  
  "I view my discussions on Hubpages, while largely fruitless, as an attempt to water a tree of liberty." That's great, Evan, but you're watering it with your words, not with anybody's blood.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, gee, Jeff, if Leftists can take a piece of a phrase and change it into something different, (like they take the Constitution and twist it), then Evan can take whatever phrase he wants to and insert something good into it or change it for the good.
  
  Unlike Obama, who said the Republicans would have to "sit in the back" (of the bus).
  And that the fireman "acted stupidly" simply because Professor Gates is a black man.
  
  Hmm...
  
  When it comes outta the mouth of the great Obama or some activist comedian, you think it's okay, correct?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh Brenda, Brenda, Brenda...
  
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You say that like it's a bad thing!
  
  Hi Ron.
  Thanks for giving me opportunity to practice one of my new catch-phrases.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I kinda liked the carp one. I was able to use many of my stock photos.
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Watering the tree of Liberty means just what it says - and it is a veiled threat or not-so-veiled threat that bloodshed is not out the question in "preserving what is someone's view of liberty..." That's what it meant back then and that what it means now. Again, it is only the hypocrite that epouses an idea, a slogan and then once pushed into a corner, denies it.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  right, that can be what some guy said, but it doesn't have to be that way.
  
  You said it yourself: words mean things.
  
  We can use words to incite freedom.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  More recently, the phrase has been meant by some as a call for armed rebellion.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It always meant an armed rebellion. Jefferson was a fan of retaining the right in the citizen for armed rebellion. Remember rights are conferred by God not by the state and it is incumbent upon the citizen to rebel if the state seeks to strip him of his God given rights. That is precisely what the phrase means.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Rights are not given by some invisible sky fairy.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  then why do you have a right to life?
  
  Because some guy, that you... apparently... had the right to elect decided that you had a right to life?
  
  No - humans are born with rights. Maybe they don't come from God, god, or a flying spaghetti monster, but we have rights.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Natural rights derive from our nature not from anything or anyone else regardless the origin of that nature.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  As long as they can't be taken away, I'm happy.
  
  As long as they aren't given to us by our government, I'm happy.
  report
  59
  logic,commonsenseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Rights are not given at all, they are earned!
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  right-o
  
  I still stand by my "let's not murder each other quite yet" stance.
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I will sleep much better tonight knowing your 'stance'.
  
  When you change your 'stance', let me know. I want to get my 7-year-old daughter out of the way. I have no reason to trust your aim, and anyone who advocates anarchy may have ethical problems worse than his aim.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You're insulting MY ethics?
  
  Remember always that you're the one advocating for theft and violence.
  
  Go! Steal money from your neighbor at gunpoint!
  Go! Murder innocents and call it freedom!
  Go! Ruin lives over the smoking of an herb!
  Go! Torture people in the name of prosperity!
  
  You might not see it happening, but this is what your state is doing - and you're supporting it.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "I still stand by my "let's not murder each other quite yet" stance."
  
  I kind of like that stance. I'd prefer a "Let's not murder each other, full stop" stance, but I'll take what I can get.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I'm saying I've never seen (or at least noticed) signs like that. You mentioned the Tea Party in reference to it. Excuse you, but don't assume I always watch everything the Tea Party does.
  
  And as far as any historical rhetoric, tell me---
  
  What famous person was it who wished a fellow citizen would get kidney failure?
  
  What President said not long ago "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun",
  
  and "it will be hand-to-hand combat" if the Republicans gain a majority.
  
  Very influential stuff being spouted there from the mouths of very influential people.
  
  ??
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Yes, I'm saying I've never seen (or at least noticed) signs like that. "
  Then you're not paying attention. They've been everywhere, especially since President Obama was elected in 2008.
  
  "What famous person was it who wished a fellow citizen would get kidney failure?"
  You got me on that one. One person wished kidney failure on another. Shameful, but I think I can be excused for not knowing which one person said that one thing one time (y'know, as opposed to hundreds of people carrying signs or wearing t-shirts with the same phrase on them at televised demonstrations for the past 2 1/2 years)
  
  "What President said not long ago "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun","
  That would be President Obama. The full quote is this:
  "“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”"
  He shouldn't have said that either. Is this shooting Obama's fault? No more than it is the Tea Partiers'.
  
  ""it will be hand-to-hand combat" if the Republicans gain a majority."
  Also President Obama. A prediction, not a call to action.
  
  I don't see how you can be even a little bit credible as a commentator on American politics and society if you're genuinely unaware of the "Water the Tree" signs at tea party events over the past two years, and even more, that you don't get the historical reference. No credibility at all.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Whatever!
  I, in turn, don't see how people who ARE supposedly so historic-conscious and high-educated can spout nonsense like Obama does; THAT carries no credibility at all!
  And at the very least I can come closer to knowing how many States are in the Union than he did. LOLOL
  
  Plus, I can interpret the Constitution without adding nonsensical stuff to it like he tries.
  
  Dang. I'd make a better President than he does. What a revelation!
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You'd get my vote!
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ROFL!
  
  Cool.
  
  teehee
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hm,how does he compare with Bush in the wisdom and awareness stakes?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Like a fox compares to a nestling hen.
  Both are aware, but Obama's the fox preying upon America while Bush tried to protect the little ones, present and future.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Believe me, it doesn't look like that from over here. Obama is a much better figurehead than Bush ever was.
  But then you're so insular that won't concern you will it?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Prove who's pulling the strings, if you can, in both instances. I'm all for that.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Er, what has that got to do with anything?
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I wasn't a big Bush fan, but he is twice the man Obama is especially when it comes to integrity. Just look how he's handled himself since leaving office. He hasn't criticised Obama once in spite of the constant barrage of blame heaped upon him by Obama!
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Plus, I can interpret the Constitution"
  You can?
  
  ": "Shutting down the freedom of speech isn't the solution, unless you mean the freedom of too-liberal speech.""
  Oh.
  
  No, you can't.
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I will give you a little history Brenda. Now you will likely think it is just "liberal propoganda," but go and check it out yourself.
  I bet you are old enough to Remember Richard Nixon, right? I am in my mid 40's and I remember him quite well. If I were to tell you that Nixon called for universal healthcare with an employer mandate in his State of the Union Address 1974, would you believe me? Would you say, "how can that be? Dick Nixon a God-fearing Republican.. say it isn't so..."
  Well he did Brenda.
  If I were to tell you that the same Republican president started the EPA - that "tyrannical tentacle of socialism job-killing pinko organization" would you believe it?
  Well he did Brenda.
  If I were to tell you the the upper federal income tax rate in the US was around 70%, maybe higher, when that great Conservative was in office, would you believe me?
  Well he did Brenda.
  Nixon, the beloved Republican of my childhood, proposed and in many cases got into law more "liberal-leaning agendas" than Obama has ever thought of. In the spirit of truthfulness, Ted Kennedy, the liberal Democrat, is the primary reason we didn't have universal health care 36 years ago. The reaon? He didn't want a Republican president to get credit for it, he didn't make the deal in the Senate. I can admit that because history is blind. I can admit this even though it makes my chosen party look bad (with good cause in this and thousands of other instances in history) - that's the difference between rhetoric and fact. So does this not wanting the other side get credit sound familiar?
  
  So let me ask you something, did you raise this much hell when Nixon was in office? I am guessing you did not. History is a dangerous weapon in the hands of the "liberal educated elites" and a real buzz-kill for the ignorant, isn't it?
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Very true. Good point.
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Awesome post.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Umm...I was a kid when Nixon took Office. You were too, according to the age you say you are, even younger than I.
  But I do remember one thing---the feeling that I didn't like the idea, even though there were kids in my class who were rooting for him. At that time, I wasn't aware of leaning toward being a Republican nor a Democrat nor any Party affiliation.
  
  Reckin good ol' instinct, however, was already at play in my mind. Something lacking, apparently, in many people today; especially it seems to be non-existent in the minds of most liberals.
  reply report
  59
  logic,commonsenseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This nutjob hand no intention of watering the tree of liberty!
  He is just plain wacko! Nothing more, nothing less! Doesn't matter if he is liberal, conservative or moderate! He is WACKO!
  He may have planned this for years. It may have been a spur of the moment, it just doesn't matter! He is wacko and unless someone was willing to try to get him committed before he did this, he was going to do it! Doesn't matter what Palin, Limbaugh, Maddow, Oblermann, or anyone else said prior to this, he is just plain wacko!
  Let's get on to some intelligent discourse and quit trying to figure out this dude. You can't figure out a wacko and even if you did, it wouldn't matter, he's still be wacko!
  Where is Jack Ruby when we need him?
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Doesn't matter what Palin, Limbaugh, Maddow, Oblermann, or anyone else said prior to this, he is just plain wacko!"
  On this part, we agree. I don't hold anyone but the guy in question responsible for the shooting. A thousand random other whackos carrying signs advocating violent insurrection aren't to blame, either.
  
  But this shooting is exactly the kind of thing those signs were calling for.
  
  "Where is Jack Ruby when we need him?"
  He died in prison after being convicted of murder. Seriously? You're now advocating another shooting? An extrajudicial execution, no less?
  
  Shame on you.
  reply report
61
Randy Godwinposted 14 years ago
So much for historical knowledge! LOLOL!
reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
Evan,
If you kill someone in my name I should go to jail?
Hunh?
Why in the world would you even think of such a thing?
Killing someone?
In MY name?
Sorry, I am seriously not comprehending your meaning. Or if you are alluding to something Rachel Maddow said then I am sorry but I am not familiar with it. MM
reply report
1. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ugh, sorry i got wrapped up in a few conversations and lost track of who i was writing to.
  
  People on this issue are arguing that people like Beck shouldn't be allowed to broadcast because some idiot with a gun decides to murder someone.
  
  My bad.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "People on this issue are arguing that people like Beck shouldn't be allowed to broadcast because some idiot with a gun decides to murder someone."
  
  That's a silly assertion. Beck didn't kill anyone. He spouts all manner of foolishness, but killing people is not one of his crimes.
  
  Saying that Beck should be silenced because someone who isn't Beck shot somebody that Beck doesn't like is just as bad (if not worse) than anything Beck himself has said.
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
Oh no, Jeff.
I suspect we are all tyrants and quashing our ideas is symbolic of spilling our blood.
reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
Brenda,
Surely you are not calling Thomas Jefferson an activist comedian???
reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago

Oh yes, Bush was all about protecting the little ones, past and future. Here he is on 9/11, the worst day in US modern history, on which (depending on whose theory you believe) the Bush government either fell asleep at the wheel, or actively contributed to a massive terrorist attack on our soil.
Yeah, big protector that one!
reply report
1. 61
  lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And where was Clinton the FIRST time the trade center was bombed? And the Cole...And our Embassies in Africa?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But the claims and comparisons weren't being made about Clinton!
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Probably in the middle of attempting to re-define sex!
  LOL.
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
As John Holden said, the statement was made that OBAMA is a "fox preying on America" while GEORGE W BUSH "tried to protect the little ones, present and future."
What does Clinton have to do with that?
Might as well say, "Well, where was FDR when the Japanese were bombing Pearl Harbor"?
It's hard enough trying to make sense of your arguments without having to jump to ones that in no way logically follow!
reply report
1. 75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  She's started hurling all kinds of stuff, just hoping something will stick.
  
  Seriously, why take her seriously at all? She didn't know that people have been carrying signs that say "It's time to water the tree" at political rallies for the past two years, and further, she had no idea which tree they were talking about, and had no idea what they meant to water it with.
  
  No credibility at all.
  
  She's amusing, but one really ought not to take her seriously. She has that in common with Sarah Palin, which should please her.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If one considers Jefferson's reminder that liberty costs blood and that rebellion, from time to time, is a good thing one must wonder what Jefferson would think of 21st century America. Better still, I wonder what Jefferson would think of the treasured Republic since 1932. I think he would be appalled. I can't think of a single figure in 1776 who would not find America since the rise of the socialists appalling. Given the temperament of Samuel Adams I could see him carrying signs and marching with tea party-ers.
  
  Do you know any tea party people personally? I do. I find that much of what liberals say about the tea party to be a clear expression of ignorance and hatred, but, after all they are liberals.
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Better still, I wonder what Jefferson would think of the treasured Republic since 1932. I think he would be appalled."
  
  "Our revenues... applied to canals, roads, schools, &c., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings. * —
  
  To General Kosciusko. Washington ed. v, 586.
  
  Suppose you back up your opinion of what Jefferson would think by a quote. Here he supports turning the USA into a 'paradise' with taxes laid on 'the rich alone'.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What activity was Jefferson proposing to tax? The importation of luxury goods not the productive actions of the "Rich." as we do now. Jefferson did not propose a progressive income tax, that was the real hero of liberals, Karl Marx.
  
  "Still one more thing, fellow citizens ---a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them other wise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Jefferson's First Inaugural Address
  
  "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want for bread." Jefferson's Autobiography 1821
  
  "If there be any thing amiss therefore, in the present state of our affairs, as the formidable deficit lately unfolded to us indicates, I ascribe it to the inattention of Congress to its duties, to their unwise dispensations and the waste of the public contributions. They seemed, some little time ago to be at a loss for objects where upon to throw away the supposed fathomless funds of the treasury." Jefferson to Thomas Richie 12/25/1820
  
  If you taxed every penny away from those you would call rich until they, themselves, lay impoverished in the gutter you would still be unable to finance the paradise you envision let alone the foolish state to which we are currently subjected. The entire wealth of the nation is somewhere around 14 trillion dollars. We have tolerated a government that seeks our national impoverishment for far too long.
  Me - Today
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When you read Jefferson, you find a lot of 'progressive' ideas. He was opposed to taxes laid on the working poor, but he was VERY comfortable with the idea of the rich paying for the common good.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Really, Jefferson wanted a progressive income tax? Jefferson wanted a welfare state? Jefferson wanted minority set asides? Jefferson was also a fan of the French Revolution even after it degenerated in to the Reign of Terror. Jefferson also died in crushing debt leaving the slaves he promised to free to the liberties of the estate sale that merely transferred their ownership to another. Jefferson would retch at the idea of invading a man's land to tell him where he can plant, how much he can plant and what he can plant. What is progressive in Jefferson? Jefferson saw work as the guarantor of man's virtue. Jefferson, who believed that cities and political offices corrupt men, sometimes beyond redemption? That Jefferson? Or do you mean the Jefferson who believed that the best way for a man to stay fit was to take a long walk with his dog AND his rifle.
  
  What is "progressive" - do you mean to take the property of one man, create a massive bureaucracy to redistribute it using up 75% of the collected value, and then with out regard to the consequences throw the remainder to desired constituencies?
  
  If that is what you mean, and I am very certain it is, whether you admit to it or not, than I would say Jefferson was not a "progressive."
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wake up! The wealth is being redistributed only one way--upward to the Banksters and Richistanis of the country. Why are you continually whining about redistribution?
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "He was opposed to taxes laid on the working poor, but he was VERY comfortable with the idea of the rich paying for the common good."
  
  "Really, Jefferson wanted a progressive income tax?"
  
  *tweeeet!* Ten Yard Penalty, Strawman on the field.
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Shwing! You have just renedered a sound poning to Bogey - here here! And these guys need to get real - our ancestors had no possible clue what a world 200 years plus in the future would hold in store. Could any of us 25 years ago envisioned such wonders as the internet, commerce at the speed of light, cell phones the size of a credit card? Some Right-wingers have this idea that things were somehow "nobler" in our past. They are now well into their 90's, but ask someone who was raising a family during the 1930's if life was easier before or after the Great Depression (factoring out World War II of course.) I'd bet the family jewels on their answer.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Cell phones - capitalist creation threatened by a grasping government. Internet commerce - again, capitalist and a constant target of government, The internet, admittedly an invention of the liberal despised - DARPA, later perfected and unleashed by capitalists and a constant target of government take over - witness the latest FCC efforts. There is nothing new under the sun. The philosophy of liberty still applies. The rights that come to us from nature are still ours. There are timeless things.
  Men have never been angels nor ruled by angels but once they came to rule themselves, here, after the Revolution, the greatest period of human progress followed and the Revolution did have something to do with that.
  reply report
  59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "the greatest period of human progress followed .."
  
  If you look objectively at the greatest period of human progress.. well let's limit it to the USA and the last century when statistics are available..
  
  It would have to be the period following WWII. The greatest rise in middle lass income and improved standard of living, access to education, elmost every measurable standard. I'm talking about a period of 2 decades from the mid-40s to the mid 60s.
  
  That time immediately followed the 'socialism' of FDRs New Deal - and the economic prosperity for the middle class happened when tax rates for the VERY rich topped 90%. High taxes for the rich were not a historical blip - they continued over the 90% rate for decades in the best period in American history.
  reply report
  76
  Aficionadaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The decades that followed WWII.... It was a time when corporal and sometimes demeaning punishment was allowed in schools, when churches were growing and very strong, and when the population was increasing rapidly with the Baby Boom. A lot of other sociological differences from our current society could be mentioned.
  
  Do I think these factors created the "greatest rise in middle lass [ ] income and improved standard of living"? No, not really. I believe the improved standard of living came about as a result of many factors, and it's just too easy to pick and choose the ones we support as being the most important ones.
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well yeah, these are all the fruits of capitalism and national defense. No one is denying this. The Far Right are the ones banging the drums over the "Death of Capitalism." I haven't seen one liberal argue for that - at least here. You on the Right believe that universal healthcare and financial reform are the great plagues that will cause red flags to fly over our cities. The principle reason capitalism was ever "challenged" was because it tends to get out of control if not periodically "checked" in key areas - Things weren't good in China or Russia when revolution occured. In both these countries there was extreme wealth in the hands of the very few. Kind of like what we have today. Check the financial statements of the over $250k a year crowd - they aren't hurting. The Recession has been nothing more than a pesky story in the news for them. Better yet, check out that democgraphic's unemployment rates.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Do you know any tea party people personally?"
  
  Yup. Some of them are nice folks. Misinformed, sometimes tragically so, often comically so. But nice.
  
  Some of them are people I would not want to associate myself with.
  
  "I can't think of a single figure in 1776 who would not find America since the rise of the socialists appalling."
  
  Rise of the socialists indeed.
  reply report
2. 61
  lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well I was replying to YOUR statement ridiculing Bush as the protector of little ones. You implied he was a failure at being the protector, well was Clinton a protector, or, since you brought him up, was FDR for that matter?
  
  The point being stuff happens and it's how you respond that defines your character. Obama has shown over and over he lacks the character that Bush has and the class! But that's typical of most people on the left.
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
"Plus, I can interpret the Constitution"

I thought the whole point is that the Constitution is not open to interpretation ????
reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
I don't believe the shooter was pissed off at something his community college professor said (unless the professor was using bad grammar, which seems to be an obsession of Mr. Loughner's).
reply report
1. 59
  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If bad grammar was his chief obsession, Sarah Palin was in grave danger.
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
uncorrectedvision,
Can feelings be brilliant?
I've heard of brilliant ideas, but never brilliant feelings.
Thanks for ascribing such to liberals.
Brilliant feelings. Has a nice ring to it.
I like it and, if you're not claiming it as your intellectual property, I may even use it in future posts! MM
reply report
1. 60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How else can the things liberal say be described. They are not the product of deep insight, reflection or reason thus they must be something very different than these intellectual endeavors. Since liberals like to say how unfeeling conservatives are the meaning is made clear - liberals have brilliant feelings.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That must be why so few liberals and so many teabaggers make up the faculty at the world's most prestigious universities.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have taught along side some of those people and I can tell you - they are not gods nor are they wiser than most people. An expert in a narrow discipline is no greater capable of running the affairs of others then they, themselves, are.
  
  You are engaged in that wonderful classical fallacy - argumentum ad verecundiam - (an appeal to authority) - gosh they must be right because they are college professors.
  
  Thanks again for the profound feelings.
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
Say what? Liberals saying conservatives are unfeeling = liberals have brilliant feelings.
I don't THINK that's logical.
reply report
1. 60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  of course not
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
So true, Doug. Which is why it' so puzzling that John Q. Public, most of which is anything but "nobility" or "aristocratic" so willingly support/elect representatives who basically vote against their (the public's) own self-interests!!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot in Tucson

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot in Tucson

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies