It's only vitriol if a conservative says it!

Jump to Last Post 1-18 of 18 discussions (250 posts)

60
tobey100posted 12 years ago
An unbalanced psychopath commits a horrendous crime in Arizona and it's the result of conservative talk. Really? Let's see...from the liberals we've had a movie on assassinating George Bush, we've had an instruction book on how to assassinate George Bush, the beloved Obama instructed Latinos that instead of not voting they should punish their enemies and reward their friends (referring to other AMERICANS), he instructed his supporters to "get in the faces" of independents and republicans, on several occasions he stated he was "looking for who's neck to step on" as well as "finding out who's ass to kick".

But of course we all know it's impossible for a democrat to be guilty of vitriol due to their compassionate nature and their good intentions. Words can only be considered vitriol if they proceed from the mouth of a conservative. Any person with sense would realize the shooting was totally Sarah Palin's fault never mind this Arizona nutcase had been stalking Rep. Giffords all the way back to 2007 when Sarah Palin was an unknown moose hunter in Alaska.

I'm willing to bet the Democratic Party was praying (and salivating) the shooter would ultimately turn out to be a Tea Party member or republican campaign manager.

And CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC wonder why nobody cares what they say or believes what they say. This is no longer the 70s when they controlled what we were told and we're no longer the sheep we used to be. My 13 year old can spot ludacrous a mile away (and I don't mean the rapper).
reply report
1. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your 13 year old watches Fox News too?
  reply report
  60
  tobey100posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You bet he does.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'll bet he's just as "fair and balanced" as you are, right? LOL!
  reply report
  88
  oceansnsunsetsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What exactly in his initial starting post do you disagree with, that you suggest he is not being fair and balanced? I am curious to see if you have back up, that supports your tone and words here?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because Fox news states they are fair and balanced. Do you believe this is true?
  reply report
2. 61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You pretty much hit the nail on the head! The left wing media didn't even wait to find out the name of the shooter when they began the assault on the right, blaming them for the incident. Classic left wing propaganda! Absolutely disgusting, using that tragedy for political gain!
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As if you don't disgust plenty of people with your posts! LOL!
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I really don't care what communists think.
  reply report
  60
  tobey100posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think we're supposed to call them 'progressives' lady.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The progressives are responsible for the slaughter of the American Indian.
  
  Their raping of the earth and its natural resources have caused global warming.
  
  Their industrial waste has polluted our rivers and streams.
  
  Progressives are a blight on our society.
  reply report
  65
  I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I guess the same word was used to describe those actions at the time, so it's fair to tie people currently associated with the progressive movement with all these evil things.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't it progressives who want to move further and further?
  
  And doing so has the potential to cause harm in so many ways.
  
  Progressives are dangerous.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So anyone not agreeing with you is a communist? Perhaps you are right, communists and Nazis don't play well together.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure it's just a coincidence! LOL
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why?
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually communists played with nazis quite well for quite some time - but ate them at the end, though - like shark fetuses in mother's womb
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  True Misha, they play for awhile then one wants to take the ball home with them.
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, during the Second World War, the Soviet Union was portrayed, at least in American media, in a fairly favorable light. It's odd, but true. Then again, the Soviets were our allies...
  reply report
  64
  Daniel Carterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's not really accurate is it. You do care because they are a threat.
  Just like you don't care to make friends. However, on that one, I'm relieved.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, you simply hate that people DO think. Otherwise your posts might make sense.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This from the beacon of light on this board! LOL!
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So why did Sarah remove her map?
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think she felt bad, wouldn't you? It's a natural reaction. More importantly why did the left use this tragedy for political gain?
  
  Why did Mark Penn say in November that Obama needed a tragedy like the OK bombing? Could it be the extreme left did this to improve Obama's standing in the polls? George Soros and Moveon.org may be behind this?
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it could be.That thought did cross my mind too.
  But---you can't tell me blue is green and expect me to go along with it...I'm not under the Right's spell. I've been on the receiving end of their particular brand of hate.....I know it very well.
  You are with them, so you don't get it.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You obviously have some sort of chip on your shoulder. You blame the right for something that's happened to you maybe... perhaps you were denied something you felt you were entitled to, I don't know...for whatever reason you believe the left is for the people and I'm sure it seems like they are until you examine the resluts of what they heap upon us.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And you don't even try to understand.
  
  Dems are the victims here, not you.
  
  What did the Dems do????
  What have they done these past 2 years to deserve the treatment they have gotten?
  
  And still you don't take responsibility for any of it.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "And you don't even try to understand."
  
  LMC, you're not exactly understanding either.
  
  "Dems are the victims here, not you."
  No. "Dems" are not the victims. The victims are dead, or terribly wounded, or grieving survivors, or friends and family hoping their loved one will recover.
  
  We're generally on the same side, politically speaking, but your recent comments are kinda making the rest of us look like jerks by association. I wish you'd cut it out. The shooting isn't the Right's fault any more than it is the Left's, and 'Democrats,' as a group, are not its victims.
  
  Take a deep breath, take a break, go get some perspective. 'Cos you're rapidly becoming Brenda's opposite number.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "No. "Dems" are not the victims. The victims are dead, or terribly wounded, or grieving survivors, or friends and family hoping their loved one will recover.
  
  We're generally on the same side, politically speaking, but your recent comments are kinda making the rest of us look like jerks by association. I wish you'd cut it out. The shooting isn't the Right's fault any more than it is the Left's, and 'Democrats,' as a group, are not its victims."
  
  I agree with this. The only one directly responsible for the shooter's actions is the shooter. Some of us are merely saying that political leaders, of all people, understand the consequences of language, and it would be responsible of them to refrain from using violent rhetoric and images in their political discourse.
  reply report
  58
  C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty,
  "Some of us are merely saying that political leaders, of all people, understand the consequences of language, and it would be responsible of them to refrain from using violent rhetoric and images in their political discourse."
  
  I do agree that the tone of political discourse can have an effect on society at large. However one feeds off the other. When elected officials sense a change in the prevailing winds. They adjust their rhetoric accordingly. The rhetoric that so many are pointing to was an elected officials attempt at saying what they believed the public wanted to hear. The imagery was intended to project strength and focus. To communicate to the public that they understood their outrage. Was it over the top? Probably.
  The problem that some have with folks pointing to this in the wake of this tragedy is, it appears people are blaming rhetoric for actions. It wouldn't hold up in court and it shouldn't be used now. In fact some would say that this premature laying of blame by association is just as dangerous as the "vitriol" and "rhetoric" that supposedly caused the tragedy.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "I agree with this. The only one directly responsible for the shooter's actions is the shooter. Some of us are merely saying that political leaders, of all people, understand the consequences of language, and it would be responsible of them to refrain from using violent rhetoric and images in their political discourse."
  
  If you agree that the only one responsible is the shooter then why do you support a group who blames the Tea party?
  
  There is not a single shred of evidence that the shooter ever saw Sarah Palins map or listened to Rush Limbaugh.
  
  And yet the left continues this mantra of "rhetoric" and "vitriol".
  
  These shootings are always about notoriety, the killer feels like he's not noticed so does something to be noticed.
  reply report
  58
  C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "These shootings are always about notoriety, the killer feels like he's not noticed so does something to be noticed."
  
  TADA!
  
  That's why these types should get a speedy trial followed by a quick and quiet execution.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We are all human beings Jeff...I am not trying to belong to any group here. I am speaking for me. Please stop telling me not to!
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why did the Right use a global financial meltdown to make hay? Because it's what politics is all about...
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Uh Lady, don't forget the Koch brothers who fund Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Prosperity's darling, The Tea Party. Grandpa Koch, by the way, was a founder of the John Birch Society. It's a great read. I can see, from a business standpoint, why the Koch boys bought the last election. It makes sense - Koch Industries is a big company - it and Cargill are the largest privately held companies in America I believe. And Koch's got lots of fingers in the pie and lots to lose if anyone rubs their rhubard the wrong way - oil contracts, healthcare interests, oil refining, government subsidized corn/grain and then there's that pesky EPA that keeps busting them when they dump crap they shouldn't into the environment. I mean it does make sense - it's cheaper and more profitable to cheat the rules rather than comply with them. But if you can eliminate the rules, well that's gold. And when you can "write off" a good deal of the money you use to buy elections and boost your profits at the same time - it's a win-win really.
  And George Soris - yeah international currency trader and billionaire. Gives away most of his money and is a child of the Holocaust. No angel himself in the business world still I have to say I have yet to see any particular liberal cause he supports that has much of a benefit for him personally. He would benefit from NO financial reform one would think, but instead he supports the very reform that potentially cuts into his bottom line. Again, he is no angel - he made his billions in many instances by banking on other peoples' currencies going south. You know he might just be an idealist - one who practices what he preaches, a dreamer, a flake, an eccentric but I don't see much evidence that he does it for personal gain.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And the "newly-minted" Republican/tea-baggers in the House went to a party given for them by Koch after they were sworn in.
  2 of the new Committee Chairmen will be pro-oil. One dealing with energy issues.
  And--they disbanded a committee to study 'global warming and it's effects on the environment' that Pelosi set up in 06.
  
  You can see where this is leading.....Backwards.
  reply report
3. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You've taught him well. Thank goodness some people are teaching their children right.
  reply report
4. 59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "I'm willing to bet the Democratic Party was praying (and salivating) the shooter would ultimately turn out to be a Tea Party member or republican campaign manager."
  
  And I'm sure they had legislation drafted for gun control tucked away in a drawer for just such an event.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know about the "legislation in a drawer", but I'll bet this shooting was no surprise at all to them. It wasn't to me or many others. Were you surprised it happened, Jim?
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is a shooting everyday, so no I'm not surprised.
  
  What I'm surprised with is how so many people used this tragedy to further their political ideas.
  
  Its sad and demented that the left would exploit a murdered child.
  
  On second thought I'm not at all surprised by the lefts behavior.
  
  Maybe thats why they were kicked in the teeth in November.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And shot in the head in January.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gee Randy, thats a sick thing to say.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Correct, and sadly true! Weren't those shot in the head there to see a duly elected official who, unfortunately for her in this case, wasn't "kicked in the teeth in November." A win or a loss for her, Jim? You tell me.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You tell me.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why, you don't know? Of course, she would still be alive if she had only just given in to her opponent and resigned from the race. How would you have felt about that? This would certainly help your party if all they had to do was suggest violence if they don't get their way. But they would never do this, right? Not only water the tree but pull up the weeds too!
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  She is still alive.
  
  Are you getting your news from MSNBC?
  
  You know they lie don't you?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, she's fine a frog hair Jim. Possibly still the mental equal of any con in the house, but I don't think she will be fulfilling her elected office duties anymore, do you? And can you say without a shadow a doubt the rhetoric had no effect on the shooter?
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "And can you say without a shadow a doubt the rhetoric had no effect on the shooter?"
  
  Can you say it did.
  
  No.
  
  But that won't stop you or any other lefty from trying.
  
  Thats the difference between honesty and dishonesty.
  
  And thats why the democrats are not trusted.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No I cannot Jim, but unlike you, I don't want to think it did and just ignore it or deny the possibility of this being the case. Just let the vitriol continue and hope it doesn't happen again. Great conservative plan. How many times does this type of thing have to happen before you admit it is bad for our political system? 5, 10, you make the call, Jim!
  report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Just let the vitriol continue and hope it doesn't happen again."
  
  I'm still waiting for you to show me where it happened at all.
  
  You keep trying to say it happened in this case.
  
  Once again, you can't prove that it happened but you continue to say it did happen.
  
  You have learned your lessons well from your Masters.
  
  Repeat a lie loud and long enough and it becomes truth.
  
  I won't let the lie stand.
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Great! Prove the vitriol had no effect on the shooter! Again, how many deaths would it take for you to see a problem with these tactics? Just give me a number.
  report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Great! Prove the vitriol had no effect on the shooter!"
  
  First of all, what vitriol are you talking about?
  
  Secondly, all speech has consequences good and bad.
  
  Its my contention that his atheism is at fault for this violent outburst.
  
  Or maybe his communist and fascist leanings.
  
  Or maybe the skull he worshiped told him to do it.
  
  See, all plausible and just as ridiculous as the rhetoric and vitriol bullshit the left is spreading.
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Still no number. Ignoring the question, Jim?
  report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Still ignoring the truth Randy?
  report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Randy's gone to feed the cows. He'll be back, I'm sure.
  report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm going to work.
  
  And Randy is too far gone to ever come back.
  
  Just kidding Randy...really.
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm back! No problem, Jim! See you later.
  report
  63
  Mishaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If some party is benefiting from it, it certainly dems, not reps. As I mentioned on the other thread health bill repeal vote is postponed, and gun opponents (mostly dems) got a fresh emotional argument against guns. Brenda just mentioned a third one, an opportunity for Obama to re-unite with the people. What benefits reps get from this, how do you think?
  
  Oh, and I can easily imagine some not-so-ethical FBI worker purely coincidentally hinting the guy that this lady is the source of his problems. Obviously it is all what was needed. Isn't this why they did not neutralize the guy before - so he can be useful for such a case?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Great plan! The left has a Judge, an elected official, and other citizens assassinated to get attention for their nefarious dealings. Well, if it helps the left so much, the right will probably quit with the mildly suggestive talk and this will be fine. Let's see if you are right.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right in what? FBI and stuff? If I am right, this epic proportion hysteria with blaming on rights what is obviously not theirs is an attempt to cover up, which looks logical. Yet it is impossible to prove and I won't even try to go there cause I value my life and lives of my friends and relatives. Wait till they unclassify the documents, which is not likely to happen in our lifetimes.
  
  As for the benefits - there is no need to wait, it is obvious to any non-affiliated person. You were not able to come up with a single benefit to the rights from this situation, were you?
  reply report
  59
  BillyDRitchieposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Randy apparently did not get the memo.....Rep. Giffords was not assassinated...she is still alive....
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Are you saying that threatening those who pose a threat to the right has no beneficial effects to the Tea Party? Does being in fear for one's life keep a person from seeking a government position? I'm sure this never happened in Russia. LOL!
  report
  63
  Mishaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Umm, if I remember correctly, you guys tend to shoot down one president per century, on average. Somehow I did not notice any lack of demand for presidential chair so far.
  
  Seriously, going into politics requires some level of courage, and while fear of assassination certainly will raise the entrance barrier, there still will be quite a few candidates available, at least one single shooting won't change this dramatically. The series of political assassinations will likely do the trick, though. So we need to wait and see how the events unfold to conclude if your idea has any merit.
  report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So why did they find his plan to assasinate Giffords? Those were his own words. Giffords is a Democrat.
  Tea-partyites insinuate shooting them. Lock and Load baby.....Take em Out!
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Bring a gun to a knife fight" - Barrack Hussein Obama
  
  The rhetoric is on both sides, LMC. And, I agree with Jeff. The only victims here are the that were shot in Arizona last Saturday. Not you. Not me. Nor anyone else.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Democrats have been victims of hate threats, which lead to violence against them, not Republicans.
  Is that better?
  
  "We'd like to ask Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin: Exactly how many left-wingers can you find out there who walk into churches, museums and political rallies and shoot people in the head?
  
  When you can name any, then maybe we can talk about how ugly the Left is getting. Until then, all the focus is going to be on the angry people creating a climate in which extremist, unhinging right-wing rhetoric is widely broadcast and officially condoned by supposedly "mainstream" conservatives -- at the very top of the food chain, and through the Right's prominent mass-media organs. That, frankly, is as it should be. Because the toll is mounting."
  
  ----January 10, 2011 02:02 PM
  Terror in Arizona: Just another 'isolated incident'? Funny how that list keeps mounting
  By David Neiwert
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, LMC, what is this supposed chip you have on your shoulder? How or for what is it you think you been wronged?
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  — 1/10/11 2:16pm
  
  "Former Capital Hill aide found dead: Body of former chief of staff to Rep. DeLauro found in burning car.
  
  A pattern of anti-government attacks emerges over single week: Another dead body connected to political inner-circles who turned up has some on capitol hill trying their best not to speculate."
  
  ****
  
  I would hope if this was a number of Republicans turning up dead---you might stop to wonder.
  Or is that too un-PC to do? Is it not allowed, since we now are supposed to "get along"....kind of late for that. And I have yet to see this "getting along" from your side.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I thought you were leaving
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And I thought you were too
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Never said I was, she did though.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, must be confusing you with somebody else who said they were going at the same time.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Occasionally I go to work, maybe you were confused by that.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or, occasionally I go to work, maybe I was confused by that
  report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Something obviously happened to you for you to hate the way you do. Again, what is this supposed chip you have on your shoulder?
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  omg...look at this:
  
  Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign
  
  By David Edwards
  Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 -- 10:45 am
  
  District Republican chairman: 'I don't want to take a bullet for anyone'
  
  Fearing violence from tea party activists, Arizona Legislative District 20 Republican Chairman Anthony Miller and several others tendered their resignation this week following mass shootings that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in critical condition.
  
  Miller, a 43-year-old former campaign worker for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said that verbal attacks and blog posts from members of the tea party had him fearing for the safety of his family, according to a report in The Arizona Republic.
  
  "Today my wife of 20 yrs ask (sic) me do I think that my PCs (Precinct Committee members) will shoot at our home?" he wrote in an e-mail following the shootings. "So with this being said I am stepping down from LD20GOP Chairman...I will make a full statement on Monday."
  
  Tea party members supporting J.D. Hayworth for senator in the midterm elections accused Miller, an African American, of being a "McCain's boy." One detractor had even made his hand into the shape of a gun and pointed it at Miller.
  
  "I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."
  
  ***
  Maybe NOW we can take it seriously!!! It's not just Democrats who are targets.
  
  "One detractor had even made his hand into the shape of a gun and pointed it at Miller."
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  One minute you're screaming the "Dems are the victims here." Now you're saying, "Maybe NOW we can take it seriously!!! It's not just Democrats who are targets."
  
  Make up your mind, LMC.
  
  You don't own any guns do you?
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well either a Tea Partier or a mental case - wait..... never mind...
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Splitting hairs...
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Bet Sarah has split a few hares in her day - probably snowshoe. Then she drizzled some olive oil on and sprinkled them with herbs and spices and tossed them on the grill.
  reply report
  60
  KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Makes my stomach growl, but darn the coyotes are so bad around here you rarely see a rabbit any more....
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Plenty of rabbits in my neighborhood and I am in the Indianapolis city limits. I do have a quarter acre lot with 15 bushes and trees.
  reply report
  60
  KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe we need to ship some coyotes your way and you ship some rabbits to the south, it is rare to see a rabbit on my 200 plus acres in the country!! Live trapping of coyotes is fairly successful, not enough trappers though, really poor wages I suspect. Might look in to that, at least coyotes eat what is in the wild, unlike my spoiled cows, could be some money there.
  reply report
  60
  KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, the coyotes do try to eat baby calves new in the pasture, so in hind sight I misspoke......... but of course, the coyotes may perceive that as being in the wild to their mind set, why would they have evolved enough to see baby calves as born into a civilized environment and off limits, their hunger is their driving instinct.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The cayote is a living, breathing allegory of Want. He is always hungry. He is always poor, out of luck and friendless. The meanest creatures despise him and even the flea would desert him for a velocipede.
  - "Roughing It" Mark Twain
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Coyotes are making inroads here also - I encourage their wholesale slaughter in Indiana. They are a disaster to game birds, water fowl, small mammals and our native foxes. If only the coyotes would eat just canada geese.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What part of Indy? When I lived there we had a healthy population of foxes and coyotes.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Huh...I always imagined her with a Brazilian.
  
  Gotta go!
  reply report
5. 88
  oceansnsunsetsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You will always have the groups out there the whine and cry and moan the loudest. They create a lot of hoopla, and get a lot of cheerleaders to join, but as you dissect things and research the grandiose claims, most often it ends with their loud opinions (and often ugly behavior.) It is very indicative of one group over the other.
  
  I think we should not choose to support those types of people. The ones playing that level of blame games are the ones willing to stoop so low. If they act this way and support those that do, is it any wonder they believe other things they do and spread what they do?
  
  The outlandish lies and behavior is indicative of people that don't think well, and that are selfish. I totally support people that encourage better than that. I am often sickened by what I see in America.
  reply report
6. 75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Which Repub was shot lately?
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why does that matter? The judge that was shot was a republician!
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LMC is probably happy about the Republican judge being shot.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The killer is showing his bi-partisanship.
  reply report
7. 75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "we've had a movie on assassinating George Bush,"
  Speculative fiction, not a call for action, and it was a British film, not an American one.
  
  "we've had an instruction book on how to assassinate George Bush," This is a new one on me. Got a link?
  
  "the beloved Obama instructed Latinos that instead of not voting they should punish their enemies and reward their friends (referring to other AMERICANS)"Yeah, both references were to other Americans. Though good for you for not repeating the nonsense that Obama was calling Republicans "the Enemy" full stop, as some have tried to do.
  
  ""get in the faces" "looking for who's neck to step on" as well as "finding out who's ass to kick"."
  
  Violent metaphors, to be certain, and not very presidential. Disappointing, I would say. But hardly a call to shoot people, unlike "It's time to Water the Tree" and "2nd Amendment Solution."
  
  You're trying to draw a false equivalency, as well as drawing a conclusion that's analogous to concluding that the ASPCA approves of child abuse, since they only try to stop the abuse of animals.
  
  And finally, is it
  
  this idiot's fault that some other idiot shot a bunch of people? Nope. But shooting a bunch of people is exactly what the idiot in the picture is calling for.
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Bravo - the logic is flawless.
  reply report
83
skyfireposted 12 years ago
This coming from religious, conservative and sarah palin fans ? Oh Irony.
reply report
83
skyfireposted 12 years ago
Let me recall if YOU(or Sarah palin) never used any fault or tragedy to bad- mouth obama or non-conservative person or political party.
reply report
1. 88
  oceansnsunsetsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The actual facts and details behind such accusations matter here. There will likely always be two sides, but one side tends to speak the truth of the other and when those facts are ugly, they don't like it. I say, why not do right in the first place, seek truth and goodness for everyone? Otherwise, people are just being disgruntled with the facts, then getting angry when others point out those facts That isn't the fault of the people pointing those things out now is it? No, of course not, but that is what actions of some reflect.
  reply report
81
TahoeDocposted 12 years ago
I blame the psychopathic shooter for this.

I will say, however, that if I had a website that mentioned a person by name and referenced them with a gunsite or target and that person got shot and other people, including a child, got killed as collateral damage, I would feel awful even if there was no connection. I repeat, I would feel terrible for the imagery and level to which I sank to make a point. EVEN IF the shooter said there was no connection to me, my conscious would be bothered.
reply report
1. 81
  TahoeDocposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  conscience, sorry.
  reply report
2. 59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you think the democrats who used such a map in 2004 feel bad?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They should. Why do we need such dividing and potentially destructive campaigning tactics? I would wish neither party used these tactics because there are always those who take the message seriously, crazy or not.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am completely against the lefts attempt at banning free speech.
  
  But feel free to join them.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I've never been against free speech, Jim. Just those speaking without been held accountable for their words when the message incites violence to citizens. Do you have a problem with this?
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are laws governing the use of speech.
  
  No TV or radio host has violated those laws.
  
  And where has this speech liberal or conservative incited violence?
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Tiller-the baby-Killer....Tiller the baby-Killer....Tiller-the baby-Killer....
  
  Tides Foundatiuon is Evil....Tides Foundation is Evil......Tides Foundations is Evil.....
  
  Barak Obama wants to destroy America......Barak Obama wants to destroy America......Barak Obama wants to destroy America......
  
  Day after day, 20 hrs a day.....
  
  Well, geuss what? Tiller was murdered in his church.
  Tides Foundation was targeted for death.
  Threats on Obama have risen 400% from Bush.
  
  This is no accident. It is deliberate. It needs to stop.
  reply report
  60
  Rabid Pumaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The 400% increase in death threats is not true and is being circulated only because it sounds good.
  
  Sources:
  http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … tml?cat=75
  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the CBS link. I've been hearing over and over how many death threats Obama receives - far more than Bush did. Glad to see it's not true.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This was on the internet too....geuss it depends on what you believe. Google "Obama receiving more death threats?" and you get a lot of pages saying so.
  
  "August 05, 2009 06:00 AM
  President Obama faces an increase of 400% in death threats a day
  By John Amato"
  
  Apparently, he gets 30 a day.
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Guess I'll believe Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LMC, this is from one of the above links.
  
  "The threats right now ... is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point in their administrations," Sullivan said. That would be Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan.
  
  You do know you can't believe everything you see on the internet, don't you?
  
  I would believe Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, as he's the one in charge of the president's protection.
  reply report
  81
  TahoeDocposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know how anyone feels as I'm not privy to that info and will not speculate. I make the same point, if it was me, I would feel bad, (regardless of which party I belong to.) I didn't say anything about only republicans should feel bad. I made no reference to party at all.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for your insight.
  reply report
3. 61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you think Mark Penn's conscience bothers him? This is what he said back in November:
  
  PENN: "President Clinton reconnected with Oklahoma. And the President right now he seems removed. And it wasn’t until that speech that he really clicked with the American people. Obama needs a similar kind of, yeah."
  
  http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/04/mar … homa-city/
  
  The left has been looking, hoping and praying for an incident like this that they could pin on the right and they have pulled out all the stops to make this tragedy, Obama's OK bombing!
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's no secret you have no idea what the left wants, LaLo! Better just stick to what you really know, what ever that is.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can always count on you to add nothing to a discussion. Typical of the left when confronted with the truth... change the subject, distract, and confuse!
  
  Nothing to see here people no Penn didn't say Obama needs his own tragedy like the OK bombing so he can shine again...
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And you are counted on to just be noisy and humorous. You never let us down either. LOL!
  reply report
  81
  TahoeDocposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you actually believe that you know for a fact that "the left", people were "looking, hoping and praying" for people to be massacred? Really?
  
  Please tell me who wants children to die and how you know this. If you don't know this, then why would you say it other than to keep the flames fanned?
  
  I don't get that. As your friend Jim said above "What I'm surprised with is how so many people used this tragedy to further their political ideas." Isn't that what you are doing now too?
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well you implied Sarah Palin is to blame for her web site with cross hairs, which is a symbol used by both parties in a campagin and has been for years! Of course you had no evidence to support your view but that didn't stop you from doing so, and I should just sit back and shut up? Not call you on it?
  
  Mark Penn is a voice of the left he said Obama needed a tragedy like the OK bombing, and the left, including the Pina county Sheriff, Clyburn and others sought to immediately blame the right for that incident. Clearly, the facts and the evidence support my view, the left wants something like this to happen, they prayers would have been answered if the shooter had been a Tea Party member.... alas... it wasn't to be.
  reply report
  81
  TahoeDocposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please show me where I implied blame of anyone but the shooter.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "I will say, however, that if I had a website that mentioned a person by name and referenced them with a gunsite or target and that person got shot and other people, including a child, got killed as collateral damage, I would feel awful even if there was no connection."
  
  Yeah you said it in a way that would allow you to deny culability...but the message is Palin deserves some blame for her website.
  reply report
  81
  TahoeDocposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  NOPE. Your assumptions about me are wrong as are your assumptions about my "message". I also said in another post that no matter which party's members posted such things, I would feel bad if it was me. No blame, no hate, no mention of who I "side" with. You assumed those things.
  
  You don't know anything about me, my feelings or my motives and in fact, you are wrong. My point is that this is how hate and misunderstanding are perpretrated. You made assumptions about my political affiliation and my message, both of which are incorrect, categorized me based on ???. I don't blame a party. I blame the shooter and the fact that he is mentally ill. I said I, me personally as a empathetic, conscientious human being, ME, I would feel bad if I had that on a website (although I would not). I placed no blame or even implied that anyone else should feel bad- that's up to their conscience. I just said I would if it was my website.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are wasting your time with her. She knows what's best for everyone. LOL!
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay if you say so, but why bring up the website with the crosshairs? Ho did that further your point that you blame the shooter? Do you think Palin DOESN'T feel bad about the shooting? (she took down that page).
  
  I hear you and take your word for it, I jsut think if that was a true reflection of your feelings you wouldn't have brought up that site.
  reply report
  81
  TahoeDocposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My point was only to state that we don't know what was in the shooter's head. There is speculation about way too many things. The only thing I feel qualified to comment on is how I would feel if someone got shot after I portrayed them with a gunsight/target. I'm not arrogant enough to presume to know someone else's (Palin's, the "left", the shooter's) motives or feelings.
  
  I think the only point I would make is that even if no one can be blamed other than the shooter, that everyone -- both parties and all thinking, feeling human beings -- should consider what their conscience could bear if they could even be coincidentally related to a tragedy. Free speech is protected, but I entreat everyone to be careful of your words and actions. Even if they aren't responsible for harm, you (or I would, at least) may feel guilty if harm comes to someone even as an unrelated coincidence. Kinda like if you have a fight with someone, say you hate them and they die before you see them again... you aren't responsible, but you probably will still feel bad. This happened to a friend of mine with her father. Make any sense?
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It makes sense. I just don't see how anyone can function if before they say or write anything they have to consider how someone might view it at some future date if some unforeseen action happens that others could draw a connection between...
  
  LOL! That's a mouthful...
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, what the Left is praying for is the following: In two years, after the nuts the GOP let in under the tent have made complete idiots out of themselves and come to realize that governing a nation of 300 plus million is not as simple as putting on a tri-corner cap, pulling your tubes socks up to look like Colonial stockings, and strapping a pistol to your leg, the pendulum will swing toward the Center if not fully back to the Left. And the last thing you people want is the pendulum to swing back to the Left, but it's a real possibility. And it will because of the extremism of the Tea Party. People tend to get scared when things go "too far" one way or the other. You remember the Republican Revolution during the Clinton years? Gingrich and his "Freshman Class," the whole "shutting down government" routine, etc. That really didn't set well with Americans, did it? In fact, other than John Boehner and perhaps a few others, how many of the "Freshman Class" were around two years about being elected to the House?
  reply report
65
I am DB Cooperposted 12 years ago
Glenn Beck said the other day that "we must stand together against all violence". I absolutely agree with this. The problem is, Beck's doesn't follow this mantra. The rotating backgrounds on his own website included an image of Beck with a pistol (demonstrating terrible grip and trigger discipline BTW, unless he's trying to shoot himself in the foot. The man clearly does not regularly handle firearms). He's not target shooting, he's just a guy in a suit with a pistol. Is this not an attempt to glorify violence and Beck's "battle" against his ideological enemies? The background image was still on his website yesterday before it was taken down. Here's a screenshot:
reply report
1. 64
  Daniel Carterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I rest my case.
  reply report
2. 0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  DB, what exactly is your experience in handling a gun?
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not much, his experience is bombs and parachuting from 727's.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have plenty of guns as I am a hunter. But I don't post my picture holding them. Why do you do so? What is the message you wish to give by your avatar? Peace and love? LOL!
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As usual, Randy, you're assuming too much but that's okay. We're not surprised.
  
  My avatar is a portrait I did of my son in his eighteenth century LONGHUNTER outfit. He and I both hunter as well. I also have a permit to carry a gun. Peace and love? Both, as long as you're not breaking the law.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not a Baptist either? LOL! So the message is, you are a hunter?
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please read closely. I chose the name Longhunter and thought I would use the portrait of my son as my avatar. No hidden message. I'm not trying to plant subliminal messages and it's not a conspiracy. I promise.
  
  Yes, as stated below, Iam a Baptist and proud of it.
  
  Now, can we get back to the subject?
  reply report
  65
  I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nice try, FBI. You'll never catch me!
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just as I thought, DB. Your secret is safe with me.
  reply report
  58
  C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, I can't tell. Is his finger inside the trigger guard?
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  From what I can tell, yes.
  reply report
  58
  C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, that would NOT be correct for a NON shooting posture. It's a bit disapointing. Sarah Palin did the same thing on her show. On one of her episodes a loaded rifle is passed from one person to another with the weapon in the "FIRE" position. She also has her finger on the trigger/inside the guard while she is obviously NOT ready to fire the weapon. I just wish the advocates would get the gun safety right when they allow themselves to be video's/photo'd with firearms.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  AMEN, C.J., AMEN!!!!!
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with this. What a dangerous example to give to those unfamiliar with firearms. This type of behavior doesn't help gun owners at all and perhaps hurts them in the end. I believe in owning guns, both for protection and hunting, but there are always those who will abuse this right and this hurts us all.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Look at that idiot Beck!
  
  He's advocating carrying guns...or are you people blind?
  And he advocates getting together and going against the federal gvt.
  All of you who watch him should know that.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He doesn't advocate ANY of those things!
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you watch his show, or listen to his radio show?
  He advocates action aginst the gvt.
  And since he has a gun there...very James Bond-like lol!
  Doesn't take much to read between the lines.
  
  Please---someone here watches him....tell us what he believes!
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I watch his show and listen to his radio show and he does NOT advocate violence of any kind! And no he is NOT in favor of anarchy!
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Did you see this one?:
  
  February 20, 2009—FOX commentator Glenn Beck hosts a program that games a 2014 civil war scenario called “The Bubba Effect.” It involves citizen militias in the South and West taking up arms against the U.S. government.
  
  Haha...fun and games, nothing to worry about?
  
  I'm a Democrat.....I WORRY.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Everything in context! The left wing blogs (ok probably the right wing too) likes to take things out of context and whip people into a lather! Here is an exert from the show:
  
  "you see all of the blogs about you left and right from Friday’s broadcast." What I said on Friday’s broadcast when they told me, when Michael Sauer was on and he said — you know, I said explain the Bubba effect. And he said people are going to take, you know, into their own hands. And I said, okay, what do we do to stop this. And he said, quite frankly, Mr. Beck, you don’t. And I said, excuse me? And he said, "You don’t. There are people that feel that, you know, this government has betrayed the American people and you don’t. You let that play out." And I said — I hope I did at least, I know I was thinking it — "That’s crazy. You can’t do this." So we’re going to pursue that line of thinking on the television show. And Stu said that blogs came after me hard left and right for what we did on Friday. What did they say, Stu?
  
  STU: Well, I mean, you kind of would expect, I suppose, the left wing, you know, attacks which were generally, I would furious and –
  
  GLENN: Well, are they — you know, I don’t read any of this stuff. So I don’t know. Were they just coming after me because they were saying, "Oh, well, he’s just coming after Obama," et cetera, et cetera? Is that kind of the –
  
  STU: I would say yes. Most of them seemed to think that you just started talking about disenfranchisement in the last four weeks."
  
  Nothing is as it seems!
  
  http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl … 98/21850/#
  reply report
3. 60
  DTR0005posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mr. Cooper, you are always a gentleman. You never resort to the ad hominen attach. That being said, I am not gentleman when we are talking about Mr. Beck or Ms. Sarah. Mr. Beck scares me. I haven't figured him out yet. Is he simply a lunatic with a huge following? We know he is "a recovering alchoholic." Is he some kind of plant - the product of a twisted sociology experiment gone awry? Seriously - I would love some kind of input from the LEFT and the RIGHT on this one...
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are articles in my native language - my typing is defintiely compromised this evening.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A simple answer. He used to be on the left until paid to speak for the right. Nuff sed!
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly! I tried to tell LMC that a couple of weeks ago, but I don't think she believed me.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The problem is, all these people believe him!
  And, he was on CNN. That doesn't make him "left". All I remember is him complaining about the horrible medical system here, and then when he went to Fox, it became the greatest thing in the world.
  reply report
64
Daniel Carterposted 12 years ago
Vitriole is rampant throughout the world, and especially in forums like these. It seems that online avatars provide a certain anonymity, and often people feel less threatened, less responsible in blasting anyone they want. Respect dies quickly in such environments.

Vitriole is rampant on media news and commentators. By the time you get done listening to a broadcast of nearly any one commentator, you're upset and angry that the world is such a bad place. You take sides easily and you hate your commentator's enemies because he/she convinced you to. Then you're addicted and you spout off in online forums, you go to angry rallies, you join the Westboro Baptist church, or buy and gun and knock off a bunch of people.

When we are willing to stop the vitriole, when we are willing to respect ourselves and others, then the world will be a more pleasant, safer place. But not until.

If you don't want to be angry and listen to the vitriole, then you may want to ask yourself if you're a part of it. We are either a part of the problem or a part of the solution.
reply report
1. 0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You wrote: "When we are willing to stop the vitriole, when we are willing to respect ourselves and others, then the world will be a more pleasant, safer place. But not until."
  
  I agree. This would be great but don't look for this to happen as long as a majority of the media remains so unbelievably left-leaning.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, let me guess, Fox News is the only real reporter of the news. Baptist are you? LOL!
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Let me guess. You only watch MSNBC. That would explain most of your posts.
  
  Wrong again, Randy. I watch and listen to them all them form my own opinion.
  
  Oh, and yes, as a matter of fact, I am a Baptist and proud of it.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There was no doubt as to your religious affiliations nor to your political leanings, Longhunter. How could I tell? I am mired amongst many of your ilk here in the bible belt. Unlike you, I refused to be indoctrinated as a child. I chose to think for myself. You ought to try it sometime.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was not indoctrinated into anything, Randy. I, too, think for myself and chose freely to become a believer in Christ. I don't know what you may have experienced in your life but I'm not here to browbeat you into believing anything you don't want to believe. That's a personal decision you and only you can make.
  
  Now, can we get back to the subject?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I just thought your parents might have taken you to church as a child. My mistake.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They did but my decision to accept Christ was my choice as it is yours but you won't be browbeaten by me to make you do it.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So you were exposed to all sorts of religious beliefs at an early age and simply chose the right one with no nudge towards any particular one. Great! Otherwise, you were indeed indoctrinated into the church your parents preferred you to be. Or do you simply believe it was mere coincidence you chose as you did?
  
  But never mind, you apparently don't see this as indoctrination.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was exposed to all religions. Mostly Christianity but I also dabbled in the American Indian ways of looking to the Great Spirit. My choice of Christianity was mine alone.
  
  No, I don't see it as indoctrination since it was freely my choice.
  
  Now, what was the subject again?
  reply report
  64
  Daniel Carterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think you're probably right. However, it starts with the individual and grows from there. So the idea that everyone is giving up on change isn't all together true. People are getting tired of such a hateful, hostile world, and individuals are making changes to live a more peaceful personal life. The effect of a peaceful life, by example, can catch on. We've witnessed it historically.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not so. They are middle of the road right leaning......
  They all went along with Iraq, Afganistan with pretty much no questions asked. And Fox and talk radio is extreme right.
  reply report
0
Longhunterposted 12 years ago
This was a truly horrible event but the overwhelmingly sad part of all this is that a child died, a nine year old little girl.

The unconscionable part of this is how the Left, Progressives, Liberals, Communists, what ever you want to call them are now trying to use this to push their warped, un-American agenda.

As for the media, these people are the scum of the earth, plain and simple, and should be completely ashamed of themselves. Given what they are and their agenda, I don't look for that to happen any time soon.
reply report
1. 75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "The unconscionable part of this is how the Left, Progressives, Liberals, Communists, what ever you want to call them are now trying to use this to push their warped, un-American agenda."
  
  Class, who can define the psychological term, "projection?"
  Yes, you in the back?
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can assure you I have more class that any of these Liberals trying to profit politically from the death of these people in Arizona, one a nine year old little girl.
  
  There are none of my own impulses that I'm threatened by nor afraid of, Jeffy Boy. The thing that does scare me is the automatic impulse you Lefties have to profit in any way whatsoever from the death of a little girl.
  
  You wrote "Yes, you in the back?" Is this you wishing you could shoot me in the back, Jeffy Boy? Typical response coming from yet another cowardly Liberal, not willing to face an adversary.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think you completely misinterpreted his comment. Jeff can correct me if I'm wrong, but "Yes, you in the back?" is a teacher calling on a student.
  
  I think you misinterpreted pretty much this whole thread, based upon your characterization of what "liberals" are doing.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're right, PrettyPanther, I did misinterpret Jeff's "Yes, you in the back" comment. For that apologize.
  
  As for the thread, no, I did not misinterpret it nor the fact it is the Left that is now trying to politically profit from the deaths of these people. The Left is screaming it is the Right that caused this violence yet they've been just as guilty as anyone in spewing the rhetoric and vitriol. Perhaps it would do for us all to tone it back.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Is this you wishing you could shoot me in the back, Jeffy Boy? Typical response coming from yet another cowardly Liberal, not willing to face an adversary."
  
  Thank you, "Longhunter," you've just given us an excellent textbook example of projection, especially considering that I use my actual name where you do not. Ten points for Slytherin.
  
  Pretty, you were exactly correct: "Yes, you in the back?" is a teacher calling on a student.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jeff, my apologies. Please see above for the rest.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Accepted, and compliments to you for being classy.
  reply report
61
lady_love158posted 12 years ago
reply report
93
habeeposted 12 years ago
Sarah Palin should not have used the crosshairs in her campaign ad. Democrats should not have used them in theirs, either. Joe Manchin should not have fired a gun in his ads. Beck needs to tone down the vitriol. Olbermann, too.

I'm a Republican, and I think there is more hate coming from the fringe right now, although the far left is not without guilt, either.

One thing I do blame on the left, however, is the way they've reacted to the Arizona shooting. Many of them were immediately blaming the Tea Party, although the shooter has no ties to them, so far. After the Ft. Hood incident, the left didn't want to speculate about the shooter, who had ties to Muslim extremists. Is that fair?
reply report
1. 81
  TahoeDocposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep.
  reply report
  81
  TahoeDocposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I really just wish everyone would take it down a notch. That's all I'm trying to say too.
  reply report
2. 58
  C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for saying that Habee. It's the absolute truth and a huge part of the problem rational conservatives have with how the left is approaching this tragedy.
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're welcome, CJ.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We're reacting this way because we have seen it coming for a long time!! YOU don't see it, because you are a Republican!!!
  So, you dismiss us as if we have no iota of common sense or worth.
  
  I have been feeling this hatred directed at Liberals since Russshhhh began in 1991.
  And all you people can say is...Oh No, it isn't there, there's nothing to it.
  reply report
3. 0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're right, habee.
  
  There's enough vitriol coming from both sides. Characteristically, it is the Left that is now trying to capitalize on this tragedy politically.
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And some are already discussing stricter gun laws, or outlawing firearms altogether. I don't know what the answer to that is. I totally support the 2nd amendment and am a gun owner and former hunter and skeet shooter. I grew up with guns, since my dad was a gun dealer, hunter, and collector. some on the far left don't realize that buying a gun isn't like buying a loaf of bread - at least when it's done legally. The ones who've never gone through the process don't understand this. Loughner had nothing on his record to prevent his legally purchasing a gun. Maybe when politicians hold rallies, they need to have them inside and make all attendees walk through a portable metal detector?
  
  We have to do something to ensure that politicians can meet with constituents safely. We need to hear what they have to say, and they need to hear us, too. I applaud Gifford's courage and willingness to do this, in spite of the threats she had received. I read that most of our elected officials have received threats during their careers, and 99% of them amount to nothing. Obviously and unfortunately, Loughner's was not an empty threat.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The screaming for stricter gun laws or outlawing them all together is the standard knee jerk reaction that comes from the Left whenever something like this happens. I don't look for it to happen any time soon. The only gun control I like is if I'm the one holding the gun.
  
  I personally think the guy that shot Giffords and the others was nothing more than a nut case. Unfortunately, the Dems want to take a tragedy and make it political. Once again, it's backfiring on them.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No. we're trying to make the hate-mongers admit to their part and stop doing it!
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Lefties are the ones trying to profit politically from the death of a little girl but yet you say Republicans are wrong. That speaks volumes about your way of thinking, lovemychris. VOLUMES!!!!
  reply report
4. 64
  Daniel Carterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ahhh, that breath of fresh rational air that you always bring with you, habee. Always love your posts.
  
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, my friend.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Rose, you don't realize that the 'left' has been unhappy with the threats from the right for quite a while. I saw the SP map last year with objections to the violent overtones. The defense from the Tea Party - then and now - is that threatening language and images in a campaign - are appropriate. I don't support limits on free speech, mine or theirs but threats of violence, encouraging violence, or using violent imagery in a campaign is wrong. Read the five quotes in the post 'Name Me One.'
  
  My free speech rights include pointing out how the Tea Party acts like thugs and hoodlums. A nut did something horrible - but he was acting out in real life what the tea party advocates - 'open season on liberals' - 'thin out the heard'. It's legal do say it - not legal to do it. But we are making voters aware of what Tea Party Candidates said - and the context in which they said it. It will be up to the voters to decide in 2012.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course these are all LIES! You have NO evidence to support such conclusions!
  
  For the record here's the map with targets from the DLC published in 2004!
  
  Were they too advocating hate and violence as you suggest the Tea Party does?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Archery targets? Yes, we advocate using bows and arrows instead of guns! LOL!
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah? So you shoot deer with a bow? A target is a target. I don't like these kinds of campaign maps - from either side.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Archery targets.
  
  Yeah, that's exactly the same as the crosshairs of a rifle scope.
  
  Oh, wait, apparently now we're supposed to believe those crosshairs were meant to represent a surveyor's transit.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And I would have no problem with either of them not being used in political graphs. But I still think cross hairs gives a different message.
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  RD, I'm surprised you didn't know this: those are the exact kinds of targets that are used for turkey shoots. You know, where guns - not bows - are used! At least, that's what I've always been presented with.
  reply report
  64
  PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hinkley took a shot at Ray-gun.
  
  All because of Jodie Foster.
  
  Have you ever seen her acting? Something to think about outlawing IMHO.
  
  search: Nell
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Is Jodie a liberal?
  reply report
  64
  PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Probably, she is from Hollywood
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  And here is the Palin map. Notice the word target isn't used, nor is the word "enemy" as in the DLC map! Double standard? Apparently not if you're a left wing denier of the truth!
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Cross-hairs/names!
  
  Imagery woman, imagery.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yet you don't see that with the targets? Like I said, the left has a blind spot when it comes to the truth.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  who said I didn't see that with the targets? I think both maps are as bad as each other.
  I was puzzled by the way you saw one as acceptable and the other not.
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for your honesty, John. I agree - I see the maps as equals, also.
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey John, you think us Yanks are touched in the head, don't you? I would if I were you lolll
  reply report
  64
  PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Who knows if Jared Lee Loughner ever saw any of these or if it would make any difference.
  
  I know that liberals would like to make this particular one disappear. Kinda makes em look two faced.
  
  Probably wont see this sign on the katy couric show "anymore" or "ever again"
  reply report
63
logic,commonsenseposted 12 years ago
I find it interesting that many of the left leaning individuals are more than willing to associate the tea party's free speech with what this lunatic did. Regardless of the facts.
Yet is was just a few weeks ago, one or more of them, suggested that it would be a good thing that Sarah Palin go hunting with Dick Cheney. Insinuating that they would like to see her shot. So I am guessing that if Palin is shot then we can hold those people responsible!

As soon as I get time I will look up the link and post it.
reply report
1. 75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, we get to say they had nothing to do with it EVEN THOUGH they were advocating she go hunting with Dick Cheney!
  reply report
2. 75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "left leaning individuals are more than willing to associate the tea party's free speech with what this lunatic did. Regardless of the facts."
  
  Well, a lot of the tea party's free speech is calling for exactly what this lunatic did.
  
  Are these guys responsible for the Arizona shootings? Of course not. Not even a little bit.
  
  But make no mistake: they were calling for exactly this kind of thing to happen.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  These are probably just liberals trying to make the right look bad, Jeff! It's a conspiracy I tell you! LOL!
  reply report
  60
  DTR0005posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  God Almighty- those are some damning photos!
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jeff, just so you know, not all Conservatives think like these people pictured here. I'm a Conservative and I also have a handgun carry permit but I do NOT advocate the violent overthrow of our government. Unfortunately, there are extremist on both sides. Also, unfortunately, these happen to be from the far, far, far-Right side. I'm NOT one of them.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I never said, or thought, that you were. I never said, or thought, that all conservatives advocate armed insurrection.
  
  I said that the idiots in the pictures (and many people like them) were advocating armed insurrection, and that the shooting in Arizona is exactly what armed insurrection looks like, at least, on an individual scale.
  
  It's my hope that the folks who carried such signs, wore such T-shirts, or have such bumper stickers on their cars will see what "watering the tree" really looks like in the really real world, and realize that they were advocating the real killing of real people with those signs.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wait, I knew you weren't writing about me specifically or all conservatives.
  
  The people in these photos scare me and are crackpots as far as I'm concerned. Especially that dude standing in his living room looking like he's about to barricade himself inside then attack the sofa. The two in the fourth photo might be cousins from the same mother because their family tree grows straight up. Unfortunately, some have this perception of all gun owners, particularly those of us in the South. I just wanted everyone to know we're not all like these people in the photos.
  
  I carry for self protection for my reasons I won't get into here. When I'm armed, I don't wear a T-shirt advertising I'm carrying. As a legal HCP holder, I appreciate you showing us these images.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Unfortunately, some have this perception of all gun owners,"
  
  As a gun owner myself, I think I can safely say that I don't. In fact. I can say that my gun is an excellent example of the sort of "arms" the framers had in mind: a reproduction 2nd model Brown Bess firelock.
  
  Someday I'll get myself a nice English fowler, but I'm gonna have to save for a while...
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I'll be damned. I have a 2nd model Bess myself. My son and I do living history reenactments. My avatar is a portrait I did of my oldest son in his eighteenth century longhunter outfit holding my Bess. They're great all round guns.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Longhunter - you just said what I want conservatives to say (and it's not that you changed your mind and are now liberal.)
  
  You disavowed these kooks who infest the movement called the Tea Party. Not all Tea Party Members are nuts, but way to many of them can't see anything wrong with those pictures. A lot of those who CAN see don't have the backbone to object. You saw those pictures and said "Whoa, I'm a conservative, but I'm not one of THEM!"
  
  The GOP and the Tea Party needs to look long and hard at the fringe lunatics and say, "We don't need you, your money or your votes. Go AWAY!"
  
  The GOP is now pandering to these kooks - as long as that's the case, I feel justified lumping the GOP with these kooks.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We should all disavow the kooks. Just as we think of these people as kooks, I also look at people like Soros, Code Pink, and moveon.org as a kooks in the other direction. The only difference is Soros throws millions of dollars into these organizations buy what he wants. Neither is the right way to do things. Just my opinion.
  
  As for the Tea Party, I've never been to one of their get togethers. That's not something generally do as I'm more of a lone wolf on things such as that.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well said, Longhunter! That is what we all want no matter which side is using such tactics to sway political opinion. I know plenty of folks from the right who are also embarrassed by the far right, just like we condemn those from the far left if they do such. There is no place for this in our country, and despite what some believe, it is OUR country.
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. However, unlike you, I don't blame the TP, Beck, or Palin directly for the shooting. This was obviously a very disturbed young man. BUT...the vitriol could affect someone in the future to do something similar.
  
  And BTW, I'm not a TP supporter, either. I don't have the energy or the desire to be that angry. lol
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't blame them directly, but indirectly they are not helping matters at all with the obvious attempts at stirring up susceptible people. But even if the shooter says he was influenced by those mentioned, there will still be denial from some.
  
  I just hope this tragedy can help prevent future incidents from happening.
  reply report
  63
  logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right on, Randy! Extremists from either end of the spectrum are not assets to anyone with a little commonsense!
  To keep it 'our' country we need to be willing to stand up to the extremists. To paraphrase Hilary, "it takes a backbone"!
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sen. Hubert Humphrey: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
  
  Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns Magazine, Page 4, Feb. 1960.
  
  John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
  
  George Orwell: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
  
  The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
  
  George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
  
  Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
  
  Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops" (Noah Webster, 1787)
  
  George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)
  
  Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
  
  Damn Tea Party Nut Jobs Are Everywhere!!!!
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Absofrickinlutely hillarious that you would think this group of thoughtful people has anything to do with the ignorant mob of teabaggers.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hilarious indeed.
  What he doesn't get is that the boneheads in the photos I've posted are not merely arguing for the right to keep and bear arms (which I support wholeheartedly) but rather for the use of those arms to "water the tree" [of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants], and right now!
  
  UCV, do you really think that the time has come to go out and start "watering the tree" (that is, killing people who, as you see it, are 'tyrants')?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's just what I was thinking when I read it.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you did a poll of 'progressives' on this hub, you would not find more than one who wants to BAN handguns. To argue the point of restricting access to 30-round clips by suggesting the government is poised to round up and execute millions of people if kooks, excuse me, if the Tea Party Patriots don't have military weapons is the argument of the insane. The violent insane.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 12 years ago
I've never stated the gunman was following a particular agenda. We don't know what or why he did what he did at this point. I just believe it is a dangerous business to condone behavior which may cause some to do such things. If you are fine with those using terms which may suggest violence if a certain party doesn't get their guy elected, then so be it.
reply report
1. 93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Was that directed at me? If so, you haven't read all the posts. I don't condone it. I don't even like for Johnny to watch Beck. I believe in free speech, but it should be done responsibly.
  reply report
75
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
Oh Ok....Tiller is still dead...Tides was still targeted...death threats on Obama are up from Bush.....

So-----does that say anything to you, or not?

Home-Grown terrorists, IMO:
KKK
Operation Rescue
Corporate-Funded Tea-Baggers.

I'm sure you on the Right have your own list....but I see a lot of action from your side of the aisle.
And it scares me.
reply report
80
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
Right. The Democrats had a map showing "targets" in 2004. Did anyone receive death threats as a result? Is a map showing what looks like archery targets (with no specific candidate or representative names) the same as a map with obvious gun crosshairs (e.g., Sarah Palin's)?
The point the Democrats (and even some Republicans -- I just read Roger Ailles himself has told his people at Fox News to "tone it down") are saying this:
The violent rhetoric has gone too far.
I suppose it's just a matter of time before someone accuses Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of being a Communist Leftist looking for "political gain" from this tragedy.

Here are some direct examples, followed by a link to an excellent article on why this trumped-up "so what if we used crosshairs, the Dems did too!" argument.

Two former Democratic representatives from Arizona reportedly received numerous threats during their time in office after being placed on Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map.

"I cannot tell you how much I wish a panty bomber would come in and just fucking blow your place up," one constituent told former Arizona Congressman Harry Mitchell, a Democrat who lost his reelection bid last year.

Another former Arizona representative, Ann Kirkpatrick, received emails calling her a "whore" and had a sewer cap thrown through her office window, The Daily Best reported.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), who was shot in the head Saturday in Tucson, was among 20 other members of Congress who were on a "target list" published by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Six people were killed and at least 14 others were injured in the attack.

Giffords, Mitchell and Kirkpatrick were all included on the map.

"You are not just wrong on the issue, you are a scumbag, you are evil," Rob Sherwood, Mitchell's former district director, told The Daily Beast. "When someone believes that about you, it dehumanizes you to a certain extent. A thought like that in the hands of someone who is maybe unstable could lead straight to violent action."

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who is responsible for investigating the shooting of Giffords, stated that "vitriolic remarks" made on television and radio may be partially responsible for the attack on Giffords.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," he said during a press conference. "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous."

"Everybody in the back of their minds, everybody feared this, everybody put this into their calculations," Kirkpatrick's former chief of staff, Michael Frias, said, "but nobody thought it would happen."

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz- … ocrats-map
reply report
1. 60
  KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Rebit, rebit, rebit, the frog croaked in response, in happy agreement, yet the resulting kiss left him yet still a lowly frog, no princely stature did he achieve, and never again he vowed would he believe another fairy and their yarn of false story, never again would he hold still to have his hoary skin besmirched by the lips of a beautiful princess......... something like that. Spin and spin, repeat and repeat, but this whole angle is pretty much going down the rabbit hole of no return, as it should. Shame. Shame on the libs who started this, not on you, it is understandable that common liberal Americans would jump on board, but increasingly it is ever so clear that the Shooter was a nothing, not a leftie, not a rightie, just a nutjob.
  reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago
OK, I'm back.
reply report
93
habeeposted 12 years ago
Jeff and PP, I fully agree with your posts!
reply report
75
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
ps: my favorite Dems are Kucinich, Mckinney and Dean....that should separate me form the rest of you, so you don't get "tainted" with my opinion.
reply report
1. 93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who are your favorite Republicans?
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln. But Jim Hunter and Sarah Palin are moving up fast. They represent all you need to know about Republicans.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm proud to be mentioned in such esteemed and denigrated company.
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ron, I really wanted to know LMC's favorites - living ones. lol
  I was asked the same question about my favorite Dems on another thread, and I answered honestly. And mine are all alive and breathing!
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well 1 of mine is.
  reply report
  75
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There was a man years back...way back. He was a Republican, ex football player.Tough guy. Anyway, he was a real fighter for people who didn't grow up with a silver spoon in their mouths. And he wanted people in poor neighborhoods to have ownership of their lives. So, he set up a trial program where this one group of people owned and operated a dry-cleaning business from their building. And they got ownership of the building as well! So, rather than paying rent to some dirt-bag crook who didn't care about them, they were renting-to-own.
  Well, this arrangement turned their lives around a 200% turn for the better. Gave them a little dignity and pride, instead of the despair and hopelessness which is shunted off so often on poor people as if it's their due or something.
  Anyway--my dad used to love him...really love him, and now I can't think of his name...funny too, because I thought of him just the other day. And I actually think his son is in Congress now! Maybe not, but there is a man on one of the committes who wants to change the tax code...get rid of the loop-holes. He has the same last name, and is a Republican. I think his first name is Mark??
  Anyway--I really respected him.
  Used to liked Issa, but no more.
  And liked the old McCain.
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LMC, we agree on something! I liked the old McCain, too - before he caved in to the far right during the last election. Actually, I still like him, but not as much as I used to.
  
  BTW, LMC, I like your new pic! Is that you?
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I really wish McCain had gotten the GOP nod for the 2000 election.
  He'd have stayed focused on alQaida instead of...well, if wishes were horses...
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, Jeff...you don't know HOW many times I've wished that! I was really cheering for McCain in 2000, but thanks to Karl Rove...
  reply report
80
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
1. Does it matter if Obama is receiving 300 or 400 death threats? Who cares if this number is more or less than Bush or Clinton or Reagan? This whole line of discussion is insane!

2. Regarding the Tuscon killings and the broader political context.
Democrats are targets. Republicans are targets.
Who are they targets of? Tea Partiers.
Is threatening the life of an elected official an appropriate way to protest their political votes?
I can't imagine any rational person supporting that.

No one is claiming that Jarod Loughner is a Tea Partier.
However, his chosen target, Gabby Giffords, happened to be a Tea Party target who had received threats from Tea Partiers.
Maybe it's an unfortunate "coincidence" that Loughner picked Giffords.
However, his actions against Giffords (and the innocent bystanders) bring into the public spotlight a disturbing fact. Other elected officials -- of both major parties -- are being threatened with violence by Tea Partiers.
The connection between Loughner and the Tea Party is violence against people serving their constituents.
Jarod Loughner perhaps could have been stopped, but the fact is, he slipped through a lot of cracks and was not.
The glorification of violence and personal threats against public servants by Tea Party activists is another matter.
It's time for those who influence these impressionable, violent yahoos to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire.
Enough is enough.
reply report
1. 59
  Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "However, his actions against Giffords (and the innocent bystanders) bring into the public spotlight a disturbing fact. Other elected officials -- of both major parties -- are being threatened with violence by Tea Partiers."
  
  Where are these threats?
  
  Post a link please.
  reply report
  75
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  It's a veiled threat, but the veil is made of some very sheer fabric.
  reply report
93
habeeposted 12 years ago
But you don't have to be a TP member to support the 2nd Amendment. Look on the forums at all the liberals who own guns -Randy, Ralph, Jeff, etc.
reply report
1. 61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What purpose does owning arms serve? Here is a hint - it isn't sports, hobby, or hunting. The ownership of arms is precisely to retain in the people the ability to act against enemies of their liberty, foreign or domestic.
  
  Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)
  
  and to reiterate the main point...
  
  "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
  
  Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns Magazine, Page 4, Feb. 1960.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually no. I have guns especially for hunting purposes. I also have guns because they are antiques and are collectible and valuable in some cases. I have guns which belonged to my dad, who was a WWII Omaha beach veteran and simply a great man.
  
  Sure, some of these guns could be used in acts of protection or aggression, but I've never used them for either. I do believe in the 2nd Amendment and what it stands for, but that is not the only reason why I have these guns.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is why we have a second amendment.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, wrote the second amendment for the sole purpose of befuddling future generations of right-wing ideologues. Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison were sharing a couple bottles of Madeira one night and decided that what the document really needed was a good prank. Laughing to the point of tears, they wrote into the "sacred document" a rubik's cube of a legal puzzle that would test the intellects of legal scholars for centuries to come. They knew of course, that the targets of their prank, dim-witted "patriots" of the future, were incapable of deciphering the complexities within the writing and would, in their frustration resort to repeating a series of platitudes to demonstrate their understanding of what had been written.
  
  The joke has succeeded beyond their wildest imaginations.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

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)

It's only vitriol if a conservative says it!

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

It's only vitriol if a conservative says it!

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies