I like that moniker, Randy.
I think I will start referring to myself in the third person when posting on forums (only ones where Jack Burton is posting, tho) as "Her Eliteness"
And I will call you Sir Serpentine
Great! And the use of "we" and "everyone" will be required in our posts to give us added credibility.
I think your posting in the third person is a brilliant idea (for you, that is). Please do it. Pretty please.
Here is an excerpt from a poll before SP's video speech this week and after. True, she went up 2% among all three groups -- Dems, GOP and Independents. But even among her Republican base she's not scoring all that high. 56%? Certainly not enough to cancel out the very strong negatives of the Dems and Independents.
But then it's early and anything can happen in the GOP/Tea Party and Palinland in 2011.
http://mediacurves.com/Politics/SarahPa … /Index.cfm
Would you support Sarah Palin if she were to run in the Presidential Election in 2012?
PRE YES 10%
PRE NO 90%
POST YES %12
POST NO %88
PRE YES 54%
PRE NO 46%
POST YES 56%
POST NO 44%
PRE YES 27%
PRE NO 73%
POST YES 29%
POST NO 71%
Oh, for proper citation, this is the poll that Jack Burton linked to in an earlier post.
"But then it's early and anything can happen in the GOP/Tea Party and Palinland in 2011."
Yeah, like they can influence complete nutcases to shoot someone?
Or, they can make it really, really, really cold in the south?
Or, they can make a pig fly?
I'm going with the pig thing.
That's a very impolite thing to say about your date, Jim! Just because your girlfriend is ugly is no reason to resort to "pig" remarks.
I KNEW Jim would get here eventually!
Jim and Jack! The new Conservative Tag Team!
You're free to believe in flying pigs if you like, Jim.
That's your right as an American citizen! Ain't it grand?
Lets face it America's Gun Controls area complete Joke you can drive a Kenworth Truck through them...
I suggest you all Google cost of Gun deaths in the U.S.
Not anywhere close to the cost of smoking related health issues
not anywhere close to the cost of having incompetent politicians in Washington.
A gun probably saved my life one night, along with the lives of my three daughters, who were very young at the time.
I remember that! It was a really big spider.
Lol. I lived in the "armpit of GA" at the time. The Big O was working the graveyard shift.
Speaking of Fox News -- what do people think about Bill O'Reilly interviewing Barack Obama before the Super Bowl?
Is Fox News part of the "lamestream media" or are they special?
As I dislike professional sports even more than I dislike O'Reilly, eagles and crosses, I somehow missed that
Haha! The 2012 Campaign has begun! It started with the Obama speech in Tuscon, 36 minutes with clear overtones, he used the tragedy to great effect, he even impressed many republicans!
Here is how it is being promoted:
That's all I know about it. It will certainly give Obama a big audience -- likely much bigger than any State of the Union address he gives:-).
And since it's pre-game, there's a chance that at least some of the audience will not yet be blotto .
LL -- didn't think of that speech as opening the 2012 campaign but have heard commentators state it reminded them of the Obama of 2008.
At the same time, Sarah Palin's video speech also apparently impressed people beyond her TP base(see poll results offered by Jack Burton and referenced elsewhere in this thread).
Are you talking here about Obama's speech or Palin's speech?
He is the President of the United States and it was a member of his Congress and his party who was the target of the killing spree.
He also needed to call a "time out" to BOTH SIDES of the name calling and vitriol that followed the shooting.
I saw a great cartoon in the paper yesterday. It shows a crowd of people holding signs and guns and screaming obscenities and hateful things. In the middle is Obama, standing tall (way above the heads of the rest of the crowd).
The caption reads: "The only adult in the room."
Whether he likes it or not, Obama gets to serve as political referee. No pun intended here, but in that speech he gave players on both sides of the "argument" a big ol' red card.
Fine, but that was not the time or the place to make political speech. That was a time to remember the dead and honor those that took action to save lives. That was a day for the people NOT for Obama to garner political points. The first half of his speech was fine, even if too long but he showed that he is one to NEVER waste a crisis with the second half of his speech:
"Their actions, their selflessness poses a challenge to each of us. It raises a question of what, beyond prayers and expressions of concern, is required of us going forward. How can we honor the fallen? How can we be true to their memory?
You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations -- to try and pose some order on the chaos and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we've seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health system. And much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds." (Applause.)
Nice how you just blot out of memory the republican federal judge appointed by Mr. Bush who was also killed.
Who also had been threatened by political forces of the Right because he made a ruling that favored immigrants!
Yes, and ~that~ is why he was shot to death by a person whom everyone in his short life agreed was a leftist interested in leftist causes.
HA! What a load of hogwash. But I just love the elitist way you respond to me Daahhhhling.
And the Dear Readers note that you really can't respond to what I posted, eh. :-)
Deflection doesn't work with hubbers. Perhaps you are used to communicating with a more stupid group but the folk here are pretty sharp.
You blamed the killing on Liberals...what else is new?
Hell, a commentor on my local blog blamed Obama for the school system, even though Loughner was in school during Bush's time!
I know it's hard to accept this horror, it was humiliating when Clinton couldn't control his testosterone... but accept it you must, or we never go forward. (well, you never go forward)
Sorry, kid... I blamed the killing on the shooter. Always have... always will.
You blamed the killing on Liberals...what else is new?"
"Yes, and ~that~ is why he was shot to death by a person whom everyone in his short life agreed was a leftist interested in leftist causes."
Read that sentenca a little closer and with better comprehension this time. I stated a fact. The killer was called a leftist by everyone who knew him. I never, ever stated that THIS is why he killed everyone.
He killed everyone 'cause he was a whack job. A leftist whack job, but being a whack job is what motivated him to kill. And the comment came in regards to a supposed factiod that the judge had death threats from "conservatives."
Which is pointless in the conversation since it wasn't "conservatives" who shot him. It was a leftist.
[edit for clarification] The This in the sentence refers back to the point made about death threats from conservatives.
The incident had already become politicized -- way politicized.
It WAS the time to make a political speech. I don't see what you think was inappropriate about that language. It seems right on the money to put the tragedy in context.
Just like Sarah Palin's speech was political.
Do you think the points she made in her video are inappropriate?
Or is it the amount of time he spoke that is bothering you?
Hmmm. 32 minutes for the POTUS.
With 6 dead and 13 wounded (19 total) that's less than 2 minutes per person.
Whereas SP's video was 8 minutes all about HER victimhood.
'nuff said about this.
Please refrain from attributing quotes by lovemychris to me.
Pay attention, please.
Though guns are dangerous, in the right hands they can be life savers, and I am convinced there are more life saving hands in this world than murdering ones....
We don't want more deaths today
Take a chill
You're dangerous as Limbaugh's pills.
Have a seat
Your candidates will meet defeat
"Tucson Tea Party Leader: I Want Victim Who Threatened Me To Get Help"
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c … reaten.php
Back to Obama's speech and Palin's video for just a minute.
Correction, Lady Love.
Palin posted her video on January 12th and the memorial was also January 12th.
Jack, I did not "blot out the memory" of Judge Roll or any of the other victims of the shooting. Where do you come up with these ideas?
We'll all wait right here while you go and fetch your reading glasses. You seem to be having a harder than usual time with your comprehension today.
The only thing I said was that Gabby Giffords and Barack Obama are both Democrats. That's all I said.
I made no mention of the political party affiliation of any of the other victims. Not one.
As such, I did not single out Judge Roll for exclusion.
Nor would I.
What you actually said was, "He is the President of the United States and it was a member of his Congress and his party who was the target of the killing spree." [thank al gore for inventing the internet and scroll back.]
And I pointed out you neglected to mention that a Republican federal judge was also shot and killed. Was I right or did I somehow miss that in your post? Or, more likely, you just never knew about the judge.
“...this is hardly an isolated incident. It’s understandable that journalists would want to set the national agenda by providing new information. That’s their job.
But sometimes the press just won’t take no for an answer, when the public refuses to see events the same way. . . . Obviously, even The New York Times eventually got the story right, and the facts eventually won out (though apologies have yet to materialize).
But it is also abundantly clear that many of the people and institutions piously speechifying about the desperate need to moderate the political discourse had no problem falsely indicting others in a horrendous murder, not because they knew the charge was true but solely because they desperately wanted it to be.”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op … 7rUHj1LtQO
The new Barack Obama has learned not to offer instantaneous editorial commentary in the fashion of his past editorializing on hearing of the Skip Gates affair, the Mutallab bombing attempt, the Ground Zero mosque controversy or the Maj. Hasan mass murdering.
Instead, the metamorphosizing president put his finger to the wind. He soon learned that his leftist base within 72 hours had turned off the public with its demagogic charges of conservative culpability for a deranged killer murdering the innocent. And so Obama summarily jettisoned his leftist scapegoating base. In dispassionate fashion, he figured that within hours the New York Times et al. would Trotskyize their earlier narratives, and most of the Left would cease the poll-killing (excuse the metaphor) “climate of hate” narrative.
He was right. The progressive community snapped back into line, reminding the country that the desire for power and status always trumps ideology. . . . Will Obama 2.0 work? Perhaps, especially if conservatives ornate the Clinton ’96 analogy with their own Bob Dole in 2012. But all that said, the wages of hubris—nemesis—are not so easily forgotten.
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishans … ucson-era/
I'm just now "cleaning" up some writing, and found this, that I wrote in March, regarding the Tea-Party:
"Someone is going to get seriously wounded or worse from their violent rhetoric."
Many other people felt the same....
Only an imbecile could not see this coming. No offense to the imbeciles out there
For all those who think that banning large capacity magazines will somehow put an end to the ability of people to kill other people in large, wholesale quantities...
"Fourth victim dies from Puerto Rico kerosene attack"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40928249/ns … nd_courts/
Go ahead... call for gasoline and kerosene to only be sold in cup-sized containers. Be consistent for once in your life.
9 hours of posting BS without a break.
Congratulations. That may be a new record.
And ~this~ is the best he can do, eh.
Has trouble understanding that people come and go on the computer. Wow... just.... wow....
Please do not do that on a public computer.
Birdbrain - The facts make the point pretty clear. The shooter has a 30-round magazine in a 9mm Glock. By all accounts, he was taken down when he was trying to exchange clips - reload. The math tells the story. Six people were killed and thirteen wounded. With one clip.
Had the clip had half the capacity, there would have been only half as many victims. I happen to agree with the 2nd amendment and the right of self-defense. I can't conceive of circumstances when a 14-shot clip, or a 10-shot clip or a 7-round clip would not be enough to drive off a bandit.
A 30-shot clip is offensive in nature - not defensive. It has no purpose in hunting. You can get your kicks target shooting with a 10-shot clip.
Hey Doug! Jack is in the john polishing his gun, but I think I know how he would respond to your post1
Is that the best you can do~you need to learn to read~you are merely a left wing socialist commie pinko~ "we" know how everything should be handled in this country!
I'm sure you are right about birdbrain but I'm concerned that anyone who would willingly twist his mind into a pretzel anticipating what a fascist would say on any subject.
It really is the best you can do, eh...
No wonder more and more people are rejecting the gun control message every day. When they think about standing next to a a person like you in support of it they begin to get the creeps... it just feels kinda icky to think like you, you know what I mean.
But please... keep it up... you're worth several dozen NRA commercials all by yourself.
Is~that~really~the~best~you~can~do? Your reading comprehension is almost non-existent. I hope the Dear Readers understand your problems. And please tell Junko you forgive him! Or you'll have to say "I" instead of "we".
Get all the rust off that gun?
How is it that birdbrain can speak for 'more and more people' and he knows what 'they' think about me, referring to the people standing next to me whose minds he can read.
And he's able to predict NRA commercials that I'm 'worth'. He must pay his dues on time every year. I missed the part where he refuted anything I said about what happened in Tucson.
Birdbrain is awe-inspiring.
We can just see the frustration setting in. Sweat pouring off your brow as your fingers furiously pound the keyboard... blood pressure spiking... spittle dripping off the chin as you search for something to say, praying to god that you at least don't get the "best you can do" when you know darn well it IS the best you can do.
Your post even deserves TWO smilies.. that's pretty special but I thought you needed a treat. Don't expect it again.
The argument birdbrain is making - you decide if it's valid - is that since a murder can be done with a combustible, either all flammables should be banned OR he must be allowed to purchase any arms he can afford up to and including a Sherman tank.
You can only pity someone who makes a fool of himself with such an argument.
That's another point I love about libs posting. They just can't help going that step too far and making fools of themselves.
Sherman tanks, indeed. What war have you been through lately? WWII the last one you heard of?
If the government can not place limits on what arms you can buy - they you can buy anything including a Sherman tank. Either you accept the right of the government to set limits or you don't. Which is it?
Since no one is agitating for the right to buy a sherman tank and no one is agitating for the government to prevent it then it really does make your question a strawman argument. You want to attempt to bring up something that is not within the bounds of the legitimate questions to have me defend what no one is proposing or requesting.
Sorry, kid... don't have to play the strawman argument game.
And the Dear Readers notice that you can't make an argument against it. You can just attempt to deflect with posting about tanks in the hopes that no one notices that you actually have nothing to say.
Just one smiley for you.
I can understand your frustration in knowing that you're coming off second best in these encounters but stealing someone else's schtick just makes you a second-rate copy.
I really do appreciate your coming to the understanding that by copying my style you might get more support but it does make you look like the apprentice trying to copy the master. I'll take you on in that role if you really want to learn to post better and I won't even make you mop the floors.
I must admit that it does give my ego a boost knowing how badly you want to be as good as I am by copying my style... but it really is better that you continue to work on finding one for yourself.
But thanks, really.
But I'm trying so hard, Jack! I know I can never achieve the arrogance and condescension you think you project to your Dear Reader (I don't think you gave Junko forgiveness yet) but then again, I would never want to.
You might check your ammo, you seem to be shooting blanks.
I am shooting blanks and you're trying to copy my style... Yep... liberals exhibit a rational disconnect at the worst times for them.
This IS the best you can do! Gee Jack, you seem....down about something. Get it off your chest.....I might even listen.
Birdbrain - "I must admit that it does give my ego a boost knowing how badly you want to be as good as I am by copying my style... but it really is better that you continue to work on finding one for yourself."
'I don't know where you get your delusions, laser-brain.'
Carrie Fisher, Star Wars Episode V
Reduced to name calling now... how 5th gradish.
But when you're on the losing side of the argument I guess you have to grab what you can to make your emotions feel better.
Blimey yes, name calling! You won't catch Jack doing things like that, I mean, he'd never patronise or or name call would he?
John. you have real problems with the english language. We've seen that in a number of your posts already.
I "label". I don't "name call". If someone is stupid I will label him stupid. But I don't address him as "stupid."
This little nuances just seem to escape you, don't they. Slow down before you post and think a moment. You'll be a better poster. I don't know if you'll be a better person, though.
I have no problems with the language though I can't say the same for you. I take it amongst your other delusions you have delusions of grandeur, otherwise what's with the "we"? After all, it's only you that seems to have a problem with my use of English.
And what's with this "I don't name call, I label"? Strewth, you really do struggle with the English language don't you?
1) Problem: This is written by a man who can't tell the difference between "person" and "poster."
2) Surely you don't think YOU are the only one reading this, do you. We is simply an acknowledgment of the other fine readers out there.
3) Me struggle? This is written by a man who can't tell the difference between "person" and "poster."
Strikes me as you are the one with problems telling the difference, or do you have a lot of none persons who post and posters who are none persons?
Of course I don't think that I'm the only one reading this but you are the only one with comprehension problems.
You're reaching, John. It's much easier just to admit you screwed up,used the wrong word and misquoted me, allowing me an approach to discredit anything you said after that point.
Mom posted that I misquote her by using someone else's words. She was correct. I apologized and we moved on. It's forgotten now, and if she tried to bring it up again she would be the one looking silly.
But because you are going to hang on to the bitter end you are the one looking silly. So be it.
Difference being that I didn't misquote you, I misused one word but did not substantial change the meaning of what you said.
It only allows an approach to somebody who has accepted that they have nothing left.
I don't look silly, unlike any body arguing that there is a vast difference between poster and person and somehow that wins them the winning ground.
No, it's typical of the right, distract and move the argument on to safer ground.
1) What a weak argument. "I didn't misquote you, I was just wrong."
Especially when the "wrong word" changed the entire meaning of the sentence.
Speaking of distracting, who is engaged in getting the record "correct" and who wants to talk about painting rooms?
BTW, John... where are those parts of the hub that are "biased and unfair"? Or is that a "distraction" asking you to back up your own words?
I wasn't wrong, as we all know I misremembered one word, it obviously didn't impress itself too much on me and I far as I'm concerned was no worse than a spelling mistake, "karoscene"!
We can not see how the one word changed the whole meaning of the sentence.
Yes, as we decided, this has nothing to do with your hub and therefore asking me to expand on anything I think about it is an attempt on your part to distract from your over bearing arrogance.
1) The facts make the point clear. A man with a can of karosene killed 4 people and could have killed many more. According to your logic there is simply no reason why a person should have more than a cup of karosene or gasoline at any one time. You never can tell what bad things they are going to do with it.
2) I am glad you know just how many victims would have happened. I wish I had god-like knowledge like that. And to think that some posters here actually accused ~me~ of "knowing everything" when it was actually you they meant to make as the star of their posts.
3) four ten round magazines could have done the same thing. And if you want to pull things from thin air, then let's make the reasonable assumption that if he knew he only had ten rounds per mag that he would have worked much better on weapons retention to avoid having the gun seized from him. That is very reasonable, people study it every day, and you cannot prove otherwise that he would not have done it. Or... he could have simply gone wiht the New York reload and not worry about it. (A New York reload is where you just drop the gun and pull out another.)
4) Your failure of conceiving anything does not obigate others to put themselves in danger when they need all the self defense they can muster. You worry about what YOUR family needs and let others worry about themselves. You particularly don't get to make the choice for MY family.
5) That's a mighty fine distinction between offensive and defensive. Have anything other than your ~opinion~ to back it up. No... of course not.
But I am so glad that you know "everything" as has been charged here that you can tell us all, everyone one of us, in every situation that we are every going to face in the future, that we have no "need" to have more than ten rounds in a gun. I just really, really want to know where your godlike powers came from.
You are the first critic to call me 'godlike'. I presume you are comparing my ability to think rationally to yours.
I drew conclusions based on what actually happened in Tucson. I did not make up hypotheticals with gasoline or IEDs or home-grown chemical warfare. The rational - and we will make allowances for the fact you are still working on rational - conclusion from the facts that ARE in evidence - a smaller clip would have resulted in fewer deaths.
Now if a bunch of teabagger kooks attack me at my home, I might wish I had a bazooka, but I'm willing to take the chance and defend myself with the arms I have, modest and legal. The mind is the most deadly weapon there is, which is why attacks by Tea Party Patriots don't concern me much.
1) No... it's because of your ability to predict the future for everyone single person on earth. Quit trying to deny that you did it. I think you'd be proud of having such powers. Stop being modest.
2) And I drew evidence on what actually happened in Puerto Rico. This man having only a cup of karosene would have saved lives. You cannot deny that. A smaller amount of karosene would have resulted in fewer deaths.
3) Defend away with what you want. Just don't expect any other people to follow that path.
[Dear Reader, it was discussed earlier the different philosophies between conservatives and liberals and here you're seeing it played out before your very eyes. The poster doesn't like something so he's not content with merely making arguments about why people shouldn't do something... he wants to invoke the considerable power of the goverment up to life or death to demand that he get his way on the subject.]
BTW, you need to use a spellchecker. In your bio, you claim to have been a newspaper publisher. The flammable liquid is spelled 'kerosene' NOT 'karosene'.
Engaging a spellchecker is a small problem compared to your cognitive problems. But it would help.
When those on the losing side of arguments are reduced to complaining about spelling then the game is pretty much over.
WB, birdbrain. I asked a question yesterday quite seriously. One you are bent on avoiding. I don't much care what you think, but I want the 'Dear Reader' to note you can't answer - and for the 'Dear Reader' to consider the answer .
You argue against the right of the government to ban 30-round clips for handguns as an intrusion on your 2nd amendment rights. I suggest by extension that you have not admitted ANY government right to limit arms. As an example on the high end, I asked if anyone should be able to buy a fully-equipped Sherman tank? If not, why. (If yes, PLEASE tell us why.)
The slimy bird isn't going to answer. Just watch.
I think if you can afford to buy a tank, you should buy it! Why not?
Why stop with a sherman tank... why not ask me if people should buy nukes. It has as much validity as tanks, eh.
The simple answer is that there is no consensus amoung the 2nd Amendment supports over that issue because it really isn't an issue of concern. We are much more concerned with REASONABLE questions such as access to fully automatic firearms and other items controlled by the 1934 gun control act.
We let the anti-gun people debate about tanks and nukes.
I told you he would not address the question. He didn't.
Either the government DOES or DOES NOT have the constitutional right to prevent birdbrain from buying a Sherman tank. By extension, if they have the authority to prevent him from buying a tank (or nuclear weapon) - they have the right to limit high-capacity weapons, fully automatic weapons, etc.
Mu guess, and I am not so telepathic as my feathered friend, is that he doesn't recognize the right of the government to limit him in ANY way, but he knows that the admission will expose him as a nut, detached from the reality of the civilized world.
1) Only someone silly would equate a nuke with a hand fired gun.
2) And, as been noted, the 2nd Amendment supporters are split on the term "arms." There is no consensous as to what that means. For some, it is limited to what the ordianary solider would carry in his normal duties. And note... one can have ONLY this point of view and still be well within reason to support the ownership of " high-capacity weapons, fully automatic weapons, etc."
Others in the camp take a more liberal point of view and expand it to almost anything. After all, it was well within custom and law in the 1800s for individuals to have their own sailing ships with cannon stocked aboard.
Notice that 13 hours after a question was put to him - and repeated no less than 3 times - birdbrain, the expert on the rights of man under the Constitution, won't tell us his opinion on whether he has the right to own and use a Sherman tank under the 2nd amendment.
Either he has to brand himself a kook
OR he has to recognize the right of government to limit 'arms'.
Can't have it both ways.
I answered quite well. There is no consensus on the issue. If you don't like that answer that is entire up to you. I gave both sides of the argument for the 2nd amendment supporters and why they feel the way they do.
For myself, I fall somewhere in the middle.
And again, (and again, and again), one can believe quite well that sherman tanks are forbidden to people yet still construe the Constitution to mean that fully automatic weapons (and even grenades) are well within the meaning of arms.
Your major problem is that you think one point of view negates the other. There are NOT two points of view. There are about a dozen or so. Maybe even more.
You fail to comprehend the point, which is simply to force you to admit that government shouod have the right to limit the types of arms.
Though we never know what an ultra-right court might do someday.. they might decide that RPG's with nuclear warheads are just what the framers had in mind.
I'd hope we'd get a new amendment rather quickly at that point
I suppose Palin and the rightys on talk radio aren't responsible for anything then. Anything broadcast or recorded stands to be an influence on certain numbers of the public, just because there's a swarm of people downplaying it doesn't mean it's not happening. If hard-core rap for instance can go from becoming a soundtrack to violent urban areas to flat-out becoming an instigator, then why not talk radio being a factor to move some of it's target audience to violent desires and eventually manifestation? Own up.
Good point. Even if Loughner never heard of Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh,Bill O'Reilly, that doesn't mean that they haven't influenced plenty of other people and even contributed to the toxic atmosphere in Arizona which may have pushed Loughner over the edge. Does anybody think they are a positive influence?
Here are some clues as to what was bothering Loughner, e.g., he complained on a chat room that he had been fired five times and was unhappy about his inability to maintain steady employment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/us/17 … r=1&hp
Facts just don't have to mean a thing when you can spin stories about coulda, woulda, shoulda out of thin air. I think that fact that Kos, the ultra liberal democrat leader, told his followers to put a "bullseye" on the congresswoman BY NAME because she was too conservative has far more to do with what happened. After all, it's just as reasonable as your story telling.
So you agree then that when Obama told his followers to "go get a gun" in answer to Repulbicans that he was leading them on a path to violence?
I "neglected" to mention all of the 6 people who were shot and killed as well as 12 of the 13 who were wounded.
My post began and ended with stating that Gabby Giffords is a Democrat and a member of Obama's Congress.
Gabby Giffords was the TARGET of the shooter.
Judge Roll was not a target. None of the other people were his TARGETS.
They are casualties, collateral damage I think you military people call it.
You take a simple declarative -- and 100% true and accurate -- statement and turn it into some kind of anti-Republican comment, oversight or slur.
Which it was not.
Why don't you stick to what you know instead of trying to put words in other posters' mouths.
So you forgot to mention the Republican judge on purpose?
Whatever motivated Loughner his was a political assassination attack with a handgun and two 33-round magazines that should be illegal.
Make up your mind, Jack.
Did I not even know about the judge (one of your accusations)?
Or did I deliberately forget to mention him?
You can't have it both ways.
Oh wait -- talking out of both sides of your mouth is what you do!
I forgot. But just for a minute.
"You already said you believe what you read."
I never said any such thing! You are a liar! Just to make a point. Now THAT is pathetic!
"If hard-core rap for instance can go from becoming a soundtrack to violent urban areas to flat-out becoming an instigator, then why not talk radio being a factor to move some of it's target audience to violent desires and eventually manifestation? Own up."
How about it?
President George HW Bush, and VP Dan Quayle went on national tv and said "Cop Killer" could potentially cause police to be killed.....
Were they wrong?
ORRRR, are rappers more dangerous than politicians?
ORRR, is it a double standard?
Or, is it true that violent, gun-laden talk could lead to violence with guns?
Jack said: "You already said you believe what you read."
Poster sez: I never said any such thing! You are a liar! Just to make a point. Now THAT is pathetic!
Jack replies: Well, then,perhaps you can explain just what " I already told you...I believe anything until proven other-wise. " means.
Sure sounds to me like you believe what you read.
When you find mainstream talk radio that graphically encourages people to go out and shoot someone just like hard core rap does then come back and we'll talk about it. But I have the feeling what you really mean is "talk radio that I disagree with."
You mean dangerous just like Obama when he told his supporters to get guns?
"I believe anything until proven other-wise. " means."
God exists...ok, I'll go for that, until you can show me otherwise.
There is no God....ok, I'll go for that, until you can show me otherwise.
"When you find mainstream talk radio that graphically encourages people to go out and shoot someone "
Ted Nugent; "Obama should put a gun to his mouth and pull the trigger"...
Last I knew, he's still on the air. In fact, he makes regular appearances on Fox, and was at Beck's first-ever Tea-Party rally, where they endorsed Palin for president.
Obama told his supporters to get guns?
This does not make sense.....what are you talking about?
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ … fight.html
So, are saying Obama is telling people to kill Eagles fans?
Well it's only natural you'd forgive Obama for calls to violence in one breath and then pick the words of a psychopathic killer as a representative of the political right. Yes you always present good and fair arguments to support the left agenda.
I don't think it's fair to describe Sarah Palin as a psychopathic killer. There's no evidence she's a killer.
LOL! Of course YOU would have to bring Palin into this! So typical! I can't wait to see her elected President! They'll be a giant sucking sound of leftist marxist liberal democrats leaving the country, and we'll finally have OUR country back!
Enjoy Venezuela! LOL
You must live in a state where medical marijuana is legal.
Sarah Palin as president.... ROFLMAO.
Yes, there is. She's killed at least one innocent moose.
Eliminist rhetoric from you only inflames the community.
How odd... I googled that and couldn't find, in any place, the quote you attributed to Ted. Perhaps you can find a cite to it?
Or... perhaps not. Perhaps you made it up.
And the obama quote has already been cited here repeatedly with links to stories.
This is a clip of one of his concerts...don't know how to copy video's, but google:
FSA: Ted Nugent threatens Obama and Clinton
"In case you could not understand the audio, Nugent said, “I was in Chicago last week I said—Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these you punk? Obama, he’s a piece of sh*t and I told him to suck on one of my machine guns… Let’s hear it for them. I was in NY and I said hey Hillary—you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless b*tch… Since I’m in California, I’m gonna find– she might wanna suck on my machine gun! Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these you worthless wh*re. Any questions? Freeeeedom!”
On July 2nd, 2010, Nugent went on Hannity's show and said his hero was Martin Luther King.....
These people are psychopaths, IMO.
"I don't think it's fair to describe Sarah Palin as a psychopathic killer. There's no evidence she's a killer."
Is she friends with Nugent?
So when you previously posted:
Ted Nugent; "Obama should put a gun to his mouth and pull the trigger".
You were actually just making that up from thin air. Thank you for being man enough to admit your inflammatory post was just a lie.
I'm not a man, and I was close enough...or do you not get the drift of "The Nuge's" position?
"Suck on my machine gun"..you punk. Was that sexual,do you think? OMG...could The Nuge be a closet gay?
Buy hey---some respect he has for Obama huh? Punk. That's not even respecting him as a man, let alone as the president.
I'd say Ole Teddy has a problem with a black president. My intuition is never wrong.
Plus--knowing him like by bro-in-law does.....yeah, he's got a problem with Obama, for more than his politics.
Nuff said...Michigan Red-Neck. And I'm a Michigander, so I can say that.
So--while I gave the wrong quote...a "lie" if you prefer, The bigger lie is Nugent saying that Martin Luther King is his hero.
O M G....BIG SNORT!
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2011/ … te-in.html
You should have known something like this was going to happen. The vitriol and anger in our nation's sports talk has never been harsher - and we may as well face it: most of it is coming from Chicago Bears Fans.
So today a squad of violent men, emboldened by the climate of hate in Chicago towards any of "Da Bears'" opponents, committed murder. Murder most foul. They killed the Seattle Seahawks' chances of playing in the Super Bowl. The Seahawks were sent to their football grave. The Bears beat them - beat them, mind you - 35-24.
The Bears, urged to their lethal deeds by radio commentators and fans, were merciless. With quarterback Jay Cutler at the helm, the mayhem they committed upon the hapless Seahawks was relentless. This is what sports has come to, fellow Americans: open combat instead of friendly competition.
Seattle tight end John Carlson was so badly mauled by a Chicago defender that he had to leave the game after being beaten nearly senseless. He was diagnosed with a concussion. So was teammate Marcus Trufant.
"I heard some Chicago fans yelling, 'Hurt him!'" Carlson told reporters afterward. ""They were shouting, "Kill 'em' and 'get him, get him!' It was clear to me that the Bears were simply doing what their fans told them to do. They even had uniformed women on the sidelines actually helping people cheer the Bears on to more violence."
Trufant added, "Yeah." Both men were admitted to the hospital where they will remain overnight. Seattle Coach Pete Carroll was very upset at the brutality meted upon his players.
"There has been a climate of hate building here in Chicago against us all week long," he said after the game. "It started with that sports talk radio figure - you all know who I mean - saying that he hoped the Bears would just destroy us. A caller said the Bears should show us no mercy. Another said he wanted the Bears to crush us. Now I've got two men in the hospital. With all the harsh language and vitriol in this city, it's not surprise that things turned out the way they did."
This reporter contacted the White House to get Chicago native President Obama's reaction.
"They brought a knife to the fight," the president responded through a spokesman. "We brought a gun. It's the Chicago way."
Once the game ended, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas tweeted, "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin."
And New York Times columnist Paul Krugman hastily blogged, "I am so conflicted. On the one hand, I decry the hate speech and verbal intimidation that Chicago carried out against Seattle because Seattle is one of the most liberal cities in America. So that would mean that Chicago is full of right-wing haters. But on the other hand, it's President Obama's city, Rahm Emmanuel is running for mayor there and Chicago been under control of the Democrat party machine for generations. So I am just going to suck my thumb awhile."
A might fine rant...
"I do not want civil discourse"
For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. After voting to support the war to get by the 2002 election, many Democrats quickly soured on the war. The profane protests were cheered by liberals who misattributed “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”to Thomas Jefferson; the words belong to the late historian Howard Zinn.
Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.
For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”
Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.
Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.
Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.
The left suddenly wants civil discourse.
The left wants to play games of semantics.
The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.
There is grown-up work to do now. Liberals ran up the federal credit card, destroyed the American medical system and undermined the rule of law — which is the foundation of capitalism — with a bunch of unconstitutional fiats from the president and his bureaucracy.
The economy is a mess. The president “inherited” a 7.6% unemployment rate. It’s now 9.4% — after we spent a record $787 billion on a stimulus.
I was not consulted on that stimulus. I had a very good argument against it. I said the money supply was too large and printing more money would fail. I said let the economic downturn run its course.
Lefties were too busy celebrating the 2008 election to listen.
When people protested lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.
So screw you and your civil discourse.
I don’t want to hear it.
I have been screamed at for 10 years.
It’s my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say.
My free speech matters more than the feelings of anyone on the left. You don’t like what I say? Tough.
I will not allow people to label my words Hate Speech or try to lecture me on civility. I saw the lefty signs. The left’s definition of civil discourse is surreal.
We have a terribly unfit president who has expanded government control beyond not only what is constitutional but what is healthy for our freedom.
Indeed, this call for civil discourse is itself a direct threat to my free speech.
So screw you.
You don’t like my words? You don’t like my tone? You feel threatened?
Actually, that is what I want. I want the lefties to feel bad. I want them to feel hurt. I want them to cry to their mommies.
That way the field will be cleared so we grown-ups can fix the nation and the economy. If you can’t put up with a little excrement, get the hell out of the barn.
Good night all... try not to strain your brains too much while I'm gone.
GLENN BECK: “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out of him. Is this wrong?”
Michael Reagan, son of the former president, suggested that people who claim that “nine-eleven was an inside job,” a U.S. government conspiracy, deserve to die.
MICHAEL REAGAN: “Take them out and shoot them. They are traitors to this country, and shoot them. But anybody who would do that doesn’t deserve to live. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullet.”
Okay... I'll match you with Nina Totenberg, queen of the taxpayer funded PBS, wishing Jesse Helm's grandchildren would die of aids...
And the darling of Air America, Randi Rhodes...
Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of “Godfather” fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: “Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. ”
Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.
In “Godfather II,” Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.
So we've managed to prove that there are idiots on both sides of the spectrum.
For instance, when right-wing extremist -- Jim David Adkisson walked into a Knoxville church in 2008 and gunned down two people, he was explicit in his manifesto about his sources of inspiration:
"This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence."
"I have a Glock 9-mm and I'm a pretty good shot"
Is this a Palin or Beck quote?
Anyone know who said this ?
"I have a Glock 9-mm and I'm a pretty good shot"
Anyone want to "take a shot"" at who was "boasting" they had a Glock 9mm ans was a good shot?
Guns and Madness by Erica Jong
So sad that the corporate media does not know what paranoid schizophrenic thinking is. I know because my college boyfriend and 1st husband had a paranoid schizophrenic breakdown.
He thought his brain was controlled by a giant computer run by the government. He thought he could fly off the roofs of buildings. He thought he could walk on water. Fortunately, he did not have a gun -- or I wouldn't be alive today. More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jon … aily+Brief
Yeah, I get it. But when do we start locking people up? When they are a little nuts? I have a relative by marriage who set a few fires in the woods when he was a boy. Dangerous? Abnormal? Maybe, but he's just an ordinary citizen 50 years later.
Who gets to decide? A local police chief who doesnt like your politics? How nuts is too nuts?
I'm not saying there are no answers, but they sure are not easy. I wish there were no need for weapons at all.
True, PQ. And criminals are going to find weapons illegally, anyway. I don't understand why anyone would need a gun that shoots 30 rounds. My shotgun holds 3 shells, so if I decided to go on a shooting spree with it, at least I'd have to stop and reload, which would give someone a chance to take me down before I could do more damage. In the case of a home intruder, 3 rounds should be more than sufficient for self defense. I must admit that there have been times at dove shoots when I wished I could have shot more than 3 times without reloading! But at least the birds got a break.
I know the ACLU is going to want me to send my membership card back, but I don't think the answer is banning 30 round clips.
It's a thorny problem. We need to do more to get treatment for people who need treatment.
I have an idea! Why not set aside a portion of all gun sales to fund mental health programs!
Sort of like the tobacco tax, only for guns.
The need for mental health services is getting bigger and the availability/funding is getting smaller. MUCH smaller.
This is why there is no conversation possible with the far right. We give them every opportunity to open a reasonable communication, and they just reject it out of hand.
It's sad. It says a lot about the anger and hate that drives them, doesn't it?
I'm not driven by anger or hate, but by a determination to conquer the evil and oppression of the left.
If the left wants to build a better world and a better society, I suggest they begin with themselves. Give away your wealth, sell your cars and walk, or ride a bike, buy a much smaller house, go on a diet, give away your guns, pay more in taxes, shrink your carbon foot print, don't exhale so much!
I think if the left could do that and not live like the hypocrites they are, people might follow them!
Again: you build straw men and blow them down. That's what you and Jim ALWAYS do.
No again you get left and right confused.
Nobody I know on the left thinks the way you think we think.
The way that I and most others on the left think is think about others, not just what is best for me.
Unlike you, we see nothing big about 90% of the world living in poverty while we glut out.
We see nothing big about tax cuts for the rich and tax hikes for the poor.
We see nothing big about consumption for the sake of consumption.
Look to your own if you want to see real hypocrisy.
Terrible branding idea, Ron.
You don't want to start a party with the word "chicken" in it -- you'll be the laughing stock of the tea baggers!
Michael Bloomberg says: "We can agree on gun control."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b … aily+Brief
But a new poll shows a remarkable consensus among Americans on gun issues. The poll, conducted jointly by a Democratic and Republican polling firm, was released today by the bi-partisan coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Among its key findings:
* Americans overwhelmingly believe the Second Amendment protects the rights of law-abding individuals to buy guns: 79% of Americans believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns and only 17% would support a proposal to ban all handgun sales.
* Americans overwhelmingly believe that felons, drug abusers, and the mentally ill should not have access to guns and that more needs to be done to ensure that their records are in the federal background check system: 90% of Americans and 90% of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns. Likewise, 89% of Americans and 89% of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech massacre to put more records in the background check database.
* Americans overwhelmingly believe that its time to close the loopholes that make it possible for people to buy guns without background checks: 86% of Americans and 81% of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.
See the full results for yourself.
It seems you and your liberal friends are in a very small minority! LOL
I haven't checked lately, but I recall that a majority of Americans favor tighter, more effective gun control.
* Americans overwhelmingly believe the Second Amendment protects the rights of law-abding individuals to buy guns: 79% of Americans believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns and only 17% would support a proposal to ban all handgun sales.
Effective control begins by allowing ALL law abiding citizens to carry concealed pistols without a permit. You can do whatever you want with the criminals.
The question is, what % of the Congress is in the pocket of the NRA?
Today's L A school shooting also had nothing to do with guns.
Michael Kinsley on the "Tucson Bait and Switch"
The right's Tucson bait and switch
By: Michael Kinsley
January 18, 2011 04:46 AM EST
In the week since the Tucson, Ariz., massacre, pleas for “civility” have turned into accusations of incivility, and the whole, useful discussion of “civility” versus “vitriol” has turned into the usual argument over competitive victimhood. The vast right-wing conspiracy has played President Barack Obama like a violin.
And they’ve done a pretty good job of messing with the heads of the liberal media as well. As a result, anyone who even raises the issue of who might be responsible, or more responsible, for the “atmosphere of vitriol” in which we conduct our politics is guilty of contributing to it. In just a few days, it has become the height of political incorrectness to suggest there might be any connection between the voices on right-wing talk radio and the voices in Jared Lee Loughner’s head.
Republicans generally praised Obama’s speech at the memorial service in which he took care to absolve conservatives and Republicans of any special responsibility for the tone of the political debate. It is, he said, “a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do.” This sounds like a noble sentiment. But who is to blame for what ails the world if not those who think differently? If those who think the same as you are responsible, it’s time to start thinking differently yourself.
Democrats praised the speech, too. So did the editorial pages. Why not? It had been practically dictated to him by every voice speaking out in the previous week. Given Obama’s conciliatory nature and the rhetorical beating he has been taking lately, the opportunity to earn some “bring us together” points was irresistible.
Any decision to put politics aside is inevitably political. A politician will put politics aside when it is politically helpful to do so. Obama clearly made the right call, under the circumstances. His poll numbers are already up. He is a statesman again, for the moment. But the circumstances were created largely by the political instincts of his political enemies, who are no less his enemies than they were a week ago.
Even more remarkably, in the past week, the question of whether a carefully planned assassination attempt on a member of the United States Congress might have had anything to do with politics has been mocked into oblivion. Well, let’s see. The dominant theme of Loughner’s ravings was suspicion of the government. He apparently didn’t believe in paper money and thought only gold has value. He believed the government was responsible for Sept. 11. And so on. This is not a random collection of nutty opinions. There is a theme to it, and it is not simply that the guy was crazy.
No one is suggesting that one of those voices in the assassin’s head was John Boehner’s cigarette growl or that Loughner had even heard of Sarah Palin when he started saying nutty, paranoid things. No one is suggesting that he got the idea that the number six is somehow indistinguishable from the number 18 from the 2008 Republican Party platform. The suggestion is that we live in a political atmosphere in which nutty views (President Obama isn’t a U.S. citizen.) and alarming rhetoric (“Second Amendment remedies” are the answer to disappointment at the ballot box.) are widespread and often go unrebutted. The suggestion, finally, is that the right is largely responsible for a political atmosphere in which extreme thoughts are more likely to take root and flower.
But all of this is now too uncivil to bring up. So wherever could Loughner have gotten his paranoid contempt for government? Who told him that the government was this hulking, all-powerful “other” determined to control and ruin his life? Official answer: He’s crazy! What more do you need to know?
Well, sure. Is it ever not crazy to buy a gun, take it to a Safeway and see how many people you can kill? It will be interesting to hear what they have to say on right-wing talk radio when Loughner’s lawyers plead insanity. The party line has always been that insanity was not a one-word explanation for anything. Now, apparently, it is.
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for POLITICO. The founder of Slate, Kinsley has also served as editor of The New Republic, editor-in-chief of Harper’s, editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times and a columnist for The Atlantic.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? … 2D3CB27881
by fishskinfreak2008 8 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_ … pvaW5zYXI-OK this bill MIGHT have SOME supporters, but Sarah Palin is a lunatic with NO credibility and NO political future. Palin wants to prove that she is American by keeping foreigners out and that's it.
by rhamson 8 years ago
With all the excitement generated by Sarah Palins new book "Going Rogue" and what some say is an obvious run at the White House, could she be the answer the Rebublican party is looking for?
by Stacie L 7 years ago
Alaska set to release thousands of Sarah Palin emails"The messages date from Palin's first days in office in December 2006 through September 2008â��a period that covers most of the presidential election, but not her time as McCain's running mate. This release of correspondence also does...
by PJ Jones 7 years ago
When Senator MCCain announced that he was going to have a female running mate, I was elated. What an election we were going to have. A female and a black male running for the highest office in the land. And now a republican has chosen a female as his running mate. When Sarah Palin...
by rhamson 9 years ago
This past election there was a lot of energy created in the choice by John McCain to have Sarah Palin as his running mate. What do you feel was the reason for this choice and how do you think she was qualified to be the Vice President. Could you please be factual with your replies to...
by Leta S 9 years ago
Currently under 13 ethics investigations...McCain and staff now full-on against her.Aren't you glad we voted Obama in?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|