Gabby Presents an Opportunity

Allow me to first say, before I go any further, that the attack on Arizona Representative Gabriella Giffords was a horrible tragedy. Here was a member of Congress doing what we complain that members of Congress don’t do enough of, meeting with her constituents out in public. A mentally deranged individual takes advantage of such a moment and attacks not only the Congresswoman, but an entire crowd of people with a gun. Innocent lives are lost, most notably in my opinion being that of a nine year old little girl. All life ended before its time is tragic, but the loss of a child is even more more unjust. I feel sorry for all those involved, including the shooter, who was obviously suffering from some mental incapacity of his own. One day he will probably realize what he has done to so many innocent lives and will have to live with that. The burden of taking a life is not an easy one to carry. That burden is made significantly heavier when there was no justification.

However, despite what the horror that this tragedy is, I see an opportunity to discuss in an honest way the madness that always follows any sort of event such as this. A large percentage of the rhetoric that follows such a tragedy is politically focused, which is a shame.

I listened in disgust as the sheriff of Pima County, an idiot by the name of Clarence Dupnik, used a press conference to launch a politically motivated rant, stating that “vitriolic political rhetoric heard on the radio and TV caused Jared Loughman to go on a bloody killing spree that left six dead and 14 wounded.” He went on to say, “When the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates, and to try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it has impact on people especially who are unbalanced personalities.” There was absolutely zero evidence to back up this assertion. There is no place for political wrangling in a tragedy such as this, however it has become so commonplace that we know what nonsense will be said in the media before the last shot is fired. And the people who do this are the lowest form of public figure. As sheriff, he has certainly shown his hand. Is there anyone who believes that he would objectively look at the facts and draw a non-partisan biased opinion while investigating this case?

True to form, before any facts were known, we already had Paul Krugman blogging about the link between “the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc.” and  “the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead.” He added, “Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.” Representative Bill Pascrell said the afternoon of the shooting that, “There’s an aura of hate, and elected politicians feed it; certain people on Fox News feed it,” (despite having appeared himself on Fox News over 150 times). To make such unfounded comments before the bodies are even cold is not only irresponsible, it is an act itself which fuels hatred and divides the country further. In this way, these assholes are no different than the very people they are falsely blaming for this tragedy.

The reality is that this is not an act that can be blamed on one party or another, one announcer or another, or the fact that owning a gun is a legal right in this country. This is an act carried out by a mentally unstable individual. No more and no less. I don’t care what side of the aisle the victim belongs to or what side of the aisle the assailant would most closely identify with. People kill other people due to a mental imbalance on a daily basis. That every now and then one of them happens to cite political motives for their act does not mean that politics are the root cause any more than a man who shoots his wife for leaving the cap off the toothpaste is a dental hygiene motive.  A cursory look at his writings finds no mention of any of the GOP talking heads (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin), the Tea Party, or anything else that makes him a “conservative shooter.” The act is one carried out by someone who is effing crazy. End of story.

Politics certainly play a part in a case like this. But they are merely the unstable catalyst for a mind that doesn’t operate appropriately any longer. A sane person doesn’t fly a plane into a building, shoot up a crowd of people, load fertilizer in a rental truck, or send poison powder to a government official. He isn’t “talked into” anything by a media figure. He is unstable from the beginning and simply looked, albeit subconsciously, for something to tie his anger to, a target for his instability and anger.

Which brings me to the next point, which is the ridiculous calls by politicians to have the FCC censor public figures who, in their opinion, are the reason people snap like this. There are calls coming from members of Congress for the FCC to take action to stop the rhetoric that comes from right leaning media personalities such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (oddly those who make those calls never seem to mention Olbermann or Maddow). Let me be clear that I don’t blame them for what has happened here. The same standard is applied to Olbermann in my eyes. Until these figures actually start telling people to commit violent acts, they are not culpable for someone who does the unthinkable. To call for their voices to be silenced is nothing more than an attempt to censor, which goes against everything that this country stands for. Beck and Limbaugh are certainly polarizing figures, but their anger and spin is so well received because those who tune in are already angry. Limbaugh may say out of this world stuff, as does Olbermann, however censoring them is not an option that should even be on the table.

Likewise we see the tragedy being used, as we should always expect that it will, to somehow make a renewed push to further the cause of controlling American’s right to own guns. I won’t get into the gun rights debate here tonight. Suffice to say that this sort of political wrangling is nothing more than a play on fear. As you may recall, I pointed out that the GOP are the masters of the fear campaign, but gun control is an area where the Democrats have played the fear game as well as the GOP ever could.

One of the things that I think is driving me even more over the edge at this point are the inevitable calls that more should have been done to identify this man as mentally unstable before this could happen. It is truly maddening to listen to. When someone has committed no violent act in the past, and has not come out and stated to anyone that he intends to commit a violent act in the future, there is little that can be done in order to stop him before he acts. We cannot fall into the trap of saying it is acceptable to take away the freedom of someone based on the fact that he or she MIGHT be crazy. If there were obvious signs of mental illness, they should be addressed. But the idea that we can look at this tragedy as a failure of the system to identify and neutralize potential acts by mentally unstable people is ludicrous. If we follow that logic we will end up with a whole host of people incarcerated in one form or another, simply because we think they MIGHT do harm to someone. That is a very dangerous path to go down.

We all ned to step back and look at this situation realistically. This is not the result of political rhetoric being too harsh. It is not the result of too little gun control. It is an act committed by a mentally unstable individual who was hell bent on committing this act and didn’t care if he died while doing so. As I have long said, when you have someone who doesn’t care about dying, they are very difficult to stop.

A failure to stop ourselves from going down these crazy paths that the politicians and media are attempting to take us down will result in the one thing that we are supposed to be cherishing more than anything being taken away: our freedom. This tragedy, while horrible, is unfortunately a realistic price that we pay for living in a free society. And I am not willing to give up my freedom in order to make a vain attempt to somehow control the hands of fate. We cannot stop a crazy person from doing something crazy. And we shouldn’t allow the actions of a few crazy individuals become the tool that Washington DC uses to take away the freedoms that make this country great.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Truthseeker says:

    This is indeed a tragedy. IF a political party was to sanction this type of stuff, then all the political commentators would be justified in their remarks. However, NOBODY has ever called for the killing of another human being. The people that are trying to blame this on the “right” are so out of touch that they will use this to their “own” political advantage which they should be ashamed of. I wonder if the one that killed the Bush aide will try to be linked politically too?

    What a sad state of affairs we are in if people reach to such extreme levels to make a point. This person just ruined it for everybody else that tries to have legitimate access to talk to their representatives. I can see the TSA taking over security before you are allowed to meet your REP!

  2. I was thinking last night that it was cool of Gabby Giffords to hold a town hall to begin with. You don’t hear of many reps doing that anymore after the people put them in their place with the last round of town halls. But rumor has it she actually loved doing them.

    Another thought now that the country has melted down into a hissy fit, putting freedom of speech at risk, Gabby volunteered to read part of the Constitution on ‘opening day’ whatever that’s called. Her part? The First Amendment! Freedom of speech, religion and press. Her comment immediately after finishing reading it? An excited “I just read the First Amendment!” Makes you go Hmmmmm!

    Godspeeed to her and the others for quick recoveries.

  3. TexasChem says:

    I agree with you USW wholeheartedly.This was a horrible tragedy committed by a mentally unstable whacko.After checking into this guys background a bit I have found that he has indeed been influenced by leftist policies.It seems as if the left has attempted to fire the first shot to redirect in regards to this incident by using the media to place blame on the tea party and right.
    I worry that the left will try to use this incident to attempt more gun control laws.Probably more freedom of speech will be on the table as well.In my opinion this would be a very bad thing to do in the current politically volatile atmosphere in America.People are going to be forced to choose between liberty or slavery.People will not be forced into giving up more freedom.Too many folks have become politically educated and are aware of the lines that have been erased over time and have redrawn them.If the left attempts to take away more freedoms it would be akin to giving an imbecile a ball peen hammer and a 120mm mortar round and telling him to play “mary had a lil’ lamb” on the firing pin…

    • Swamp Fox says:

      I really hope you’re right that “People will not be forced into giving up more freedom.” However, I’m afraid that when forced to choose between liberty and slavery, far too many will choose slavery.

      Our federal government begins to resemble what the colonies rejected in the late 1700s more and more as time goes on. The people are being trounced and freedoms are being taken away. I don’t see the run away train stopping anytime soon and I don’t see the people as a whole taking a stand. I pray I am wrong.

    • TC

      I don’t think there will be any success with gun control. SCOTUS made it clear the gun ownership is a RIGHT (which we all knew anyway) and the really nice, very clearly written part of the 2nd Amendment “shall not be infringed”. For those who have a hard time understanding the the Constitution was written to “LIMIT” the Federal Govt., let me help “Shall not be infringed” That means NO to the governments ability to take that right away. Why we still have so many people that pound their fist crying for gun control is beyong my scope of understatnding, but for the sake of them, let me say again, Shall not be infringed = NO.

  4. Common Man says:

    We should all keep a good thought, or say a prayer for all those affected by this horrilble event. May peace be with those that lost as a result of this nut-jobs actions.

    CM

  5. Fair enough, no party or cause is responsible for the actions of a whack job … but … when you write: Suffice to say that this sort of political wrangling is nothing more than a play on fear., isn’t that something akin to the “fear” that the government is going to take all your liberty (and guns) away one step at a time because of regulation, censorship, etc.?

    Both sides play to fear because it works; gets the grass roots stirred up into a frenzy and some tote guns to public assembly (on display). I’m thinking once one of those public display guns is fired (no matter how or at who if anyone at all), then the political spinning will be more rampant than it is these days.

    Time out to acknowledge Richard Winters passing … man, did that guy live a life. Incredible story … as is the story of Louie Zamperini (see the book “Unbroken” by Laura Hillenbrand) and how that poor guy went through tortures in Japanese POW camps that make Abu Ghrahib disneyland by comparison).

    Okay, back at it …

    • CS,

      Good morning! I agree that both sides play the fear game. I also think both sides exploit crises, so as not to let one be wasted. If the Polls need fear to get support for legislation, than they should be afforded no support at all, see through the deception and call it what it likely is, a big LIE. Good legislation does’nt need a fear factor to be supported, whereas, bad legislation, which seems to be a constant, fear seems to be the mantra.

      Hope your day is a good one, lots of snow coming!

      G!

    • Displaced Okie says:

      I agree Richard Winter’s life was pretty amazing, wasn’t it?
      Anyway, happy Tuesday SUFA.

    • FCC Should Clamp Down on Inflammatory Rhetoric Says Dem Lawmaker

      by John Brandt | January 10, 2011

      * Print
      * Email
      * Share
      * 144 Comments
      *
      *

      Charlie,

      It’s not being paranoid if you know someone is out to get you. Or do you think freedom of speech should have liberal approval?

      “isn’t that something akin to the “fear” that the government is going to take all your liberty (and guns) away one step at a time because of regulation, censorship, etc.?”

      Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said in a Monday afternoon conference call that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should work harder to sanction broadcasts that could incite people to violence.

      “No one owns the airwaves,” Slaughter said, “They are owned by the people.”

      Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/10/fcc-should-clamp-down-inflammatory-rhetoric-says-dem-lawmaker#ixzz1AjtqOWIY

      • It’s not being paranoid if you know someone is out to get you.

        Now that reads pretty paranoid to me. How do you “know” this? Isn’t it a bit of a stretch?

        • Charlie,

          Slaughter wants to use the FCC to decide what can be said.
          She is an advocate of the “Fairness Doctrine”.

          “Now that reads pretty paranoid to me.”

          If that’s your definition of paranoid, then I guess I’m guilty. You should report all my hatespeech to homeland security, while there’s still time. No telling what I’ll say next & who it might incite…….

          • No fear here, brother. I could care less what anyone has to say. The point being, you’re seeing conspiracies that would have to be run by people you claim can’t run the post office (and they can’t). What makes you think they could pull off such a great scheme?

            • Charlie,

              How long was the “Fairness Doctrine” the law of the land? And I have an issue with what some try to accomplish, not just what they can pull off. Kinda like attempted robbery is the same as robbery to me.
              EX.

              Congresswoman Wants to Kill the Phrase ‘Job Killing’

              Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2011/01/11/congresswoman-wants-kill-phrase-job-killing#ixzz1ApQ4Q1dx

              And you disappoint me on this, as a writer, I would expect any effort to limit your freedom of speech to offend you.

              • That kind of censorship is just silly so I don’t pay any attention to it (and I don’t fear it is the beginning of the end regarding censorship). Nobody is going to take the serious. It’s thrown out there for the sake throwing a bone to her constituents and reaction from her detractors and you took the bait (it seems). The government (and those running it for big business) just aren’t smart enough to conspire anything more than the way they run roughshod over the American worker (and even that isn’t a conspiracy–just power flexing its muscle).

    • Charlie Stella

      Your question: “isn’t that something akin to the “fear” that the government is going to take all your liberty (and guns) away one step at a time because of regulation, censorship, etc.?”

      Answer: ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      The day you accept that premise is the day you push us all off the cliff.

      • Holy moly (or is it two “l’s”?)

        Avoid that cliff at all costs.

        The world is out to get you/us!

        How does one take a step out the door with all that conspiracy going on?

  6. Ray Hawkins says:

    @USW – I offer disappointment to you in your posting. No sooner do you condemn Paul Krugman and Clarence Dupnik as partisan hacks/assholes for jumping the gun and making/drawing conclusion that are not supported by any facts – then you proceed to – (queue the drum roll please) – offer your own conclusions that are not any more supported by facts.

    Other than some minor discoveries that have come out of the investigation thus far, there is little one can effectively conclude on. Sure, the easy fit is to say he was just some crazy loon and we’ll never know exactly what motivated him. But how about you give the guys in blue a chance to complete their work before you so ascertain what did or did not motivate him? Taking the tactic you have simply puts you in the same boat as Krugman and Dupnik.

    • Some things are just simple Ray. What other proof do you need that this guy was a loon. What do you NEED as proof?

      YOU, Ray, do nothing to spur conversation. If anything you are part of the loons trying to shut everyone up.

      I see no reason for your post other than to ridicule.

      Saul Alinsky #5 in action.

      Bring it on! I know it’s coming and am in no mood for your shit today.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Anita – you’re reacting merely to what the media has fed you.

      • Anita

        I accused Ray of letting his bias cloud his ability to see your point clearly yesterday.

        I think perhaps today you are doing the same.

        Ray has consistently shown some very good critical thinking in his comments. Not always, but quite a bit. In this case he is simply pointing out the apparent conflict between accusing others of premature criticism and then criticizing with the same lack of information.

        The question is whether his accusation is accurate given what USW posted, or did he make a mistake in his interpretation.

        I understand and feel the anger and frustration right now over all of this. But I think you should consider giving Ray a little benefit of the doubt.

        His questions should make us pause to double check our assumptions. Once checked then we can move forward.

        Big hug for you this morning. Be calm and think of your happy place.

        JAC

        • You are right JAC! I have an attitude…I started calmly as you see! I give Ray credit for his knowledge. But he came in with BULLSHIT today. I am standing my ground on that and am holding him to it.

          I did notice you had my back yesterday but didn’t aknowledge so as not to fuel the fire. I’m just not putting up with it today. Apologies to everyone else!

          This is after counting to ten! 😈

          • Then go to 100 my dear Michiganlander.

            If Ray if off I am sure USW will handle it.

            So when is the current expected MOVE date to the new cabin?

            • 100.. I’m done..can I get off the SUFA now…and don’t try to sidetrack me on nice thoughts. Love ya JAC 🙂

          • Anita,

            Good Morning! 🙂 I see the kitty is hissing today 😆 I felt that way yesterday, but, I don’t blame Ray, Charlie, Matt, Buck or Todd. I hold that the entire Liberal/Progressive Agenda is based on nothing but Lies. No good can come from it, because lies can only lead to bad things.

            • More like a damn LION! ROOAAR!.. Heehee.. My company logo is a LION!

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              G-Man – my only point here is that BOTH sides of jumped to conclusions with only scant knowledge of what the media has reported. As I know you know – the are likely many wrinkles and angles LE is working which we have no idea about. Yet.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      If it turns out the shooter ‘claims’ to have been swayed by political Rhetoric, do you think any new laws should be made? If not new laws, do you think we should all pressure others to avoid Rhetoric which might be perceived by anyone, Nuts or Sane, to require a violent outburst? Are you ready for years of silly bickering over what is acceptable Rhetoric? Not Me, I say leave it alone.

      • I don’t think it should be “years of silly bickering” at all. I think, personally, it comes down to each individual “policing” themselves and behaving with civility, dignity and decency towards those we are in opposition to when engaging them in discussions and debates.

        All manner of implied censorship, or FCC fairness monitoring, or anything restricting free speech is not the right way to handle things. If someone commits a criminal act with their speech we have laws to deal with that and the alleged violator, but is it wrong to say that we can agree to disagree and do it respectfully?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @APD – no new laws are needed. I think we have enough civility remaining to properly ridicule those whose rhetoric influences as you described.

    • Ray,

      there is some information already out there that indicate the state of his mind. Maybe USW was remiss in not posting a link from which he was drawing his conclusion. I don’t know that there will ever be enough “facts” to prove what this nut was thinking, a friend saying what he remembers hearing several years ago is not a fact. Sorry, but it is enough for me to think about and form an opinion on, and even share. I might be wrong, but then, so might you…..
      (FYI, he seemed obsessed with language, the meaning of words)
      (and yes, that’s just my opinion)

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/loughners_grudge_against_giffo.html

      Tierney, who’s also 22, recalls Loughner complaining about a Giffords event he attended during that period [2007]. He’s unsure whether it was the same one mentioned in the charges-Loughner “might have gone to some other rallies,” he says-but Tierney notes it was a significant moment for Loughner: “He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he asked a question. The question was, ‘What is government if words have no meaning?'”

    • I have a question-lets say this guy starts talking and he points a finger at a specific media guy who’s comments pushed his buttons-what then?

    • @Ray,

      I am interested in understanding what conclusion that you feel I jumped to without justification. It appears to me that the only assertion that I made was that this person was mentally unstable. I think when someone opens up on a crowd of innocent people, that is a fair assertion to make. Mentally stable people don’t shoot all those people. Therefore, I would say that my assertion that he was not mentally stable is correct.

      Was there some other assertion that disappointed you so this morning?

      USW

      • He has no valid counter arguement so attack the messenger. It’s Ray for God’s sake! If nothing else, he’s consistent.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Kathy – not that you’ll apply an ounce of critical analysis – but refer to my reply to USW.

          Thanks.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @USW – the following paragraph you wrote is chock full of conclusions (the dead giveaway is the statement “end of story”).

        “The reality is that this is not an act that can be blamed on one party or another, one announcer or another, or the fact that owning a gun is a legal right in this country. This is an act carried out by a mentally unstable individual. No more and no less. I don’t care what side of the aisle the victim belongs to or what side of the aisle the assailant would most closely identify with. People kill other people due to a mental imbalance on a daily basis. That every now and then one of them happens to cite political motives for their act does not mean that politics are the root cause any more than a man who shoots his wife for leaving the cap off the toothpaste is a dental hygiene motive. A cursory look at his writings finds no mention of any of the GOP talking heads (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin), the Tea Party, or anything else that makes him a “conservative shooter.” The act is one carried out by someone who is effing crazy. End of story.”

        This investigation has only begun, and for what has been accomplished, we can probably be certain that only a portion has been leaked to the media. As an example, any computer he used is probably just now today finishing forensic analysis. Any ISP’s or third parties used may just be finalizing completing LE requests for data.

        This is not the end of the story.

        It is merely the beginning.

        • Bottom Line says:

          Ray,

          Suppose they find that he was a hard-core right wing Beck, Hannity, and Palin worshiper.

          Suppose they find out EXACTLY what his motives were.

          So?

          Is there anything rational that can justify his actions?

          Will it change the fact that he’s nuts, that he shot up a bunch of people for sake of some screwed up rationale?

          Take away all the bullshit and you end up with… he did it cuz he’s nuts.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @BottomLine – I have been speaking to his mental state as a matter of criminal and clinical assessment. The prevailing – “well he must be fucking nuts no matter what” attitude I am getting here is not necessarily congruent to that. I could say that you are f’in nuts and you likewise to me. For purposes of clarity and action I elected to err on the establish practice and protocol rather than gut feeling. His actions may seem crazy or nuts – but what is the diagnosis. And yes it does matter if one can or cannot distinguish or understand things like rational and rationale.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Yes, Ray, you could say that since a clinical assessment by a licensed professional hasn’t yet been performed, that it is premature to label him as “nuts”.

              You could also say that no sane person would find a rational solution in indiscriminately murdering innocent strangers that pose no threat to him.

              Something is obviously seriously warped about his sense of rationale…hence why it is safe to label him as a “nut”.

        • @Ray

          A fair point. I suppose then that we might find that he followed some political talking head. However, that doesn’t change the premise of what I proposed. What I proposed was that he is crazy. What I proposed is that regardless of what party or commentator he may listen to, he is crazy. What I proposed is that no matter what they may find in the investigation…. this is the act of a deranged individual. That is that only conclusion to be made.

          The act is one carried out by someone who is effing crazy. End of story.

          Are you attempting to posit that he isn’t crazy? Because that in itself seems crazy to me. He shot over a dozen people! He is crazy, regardless of his motivation. That is the point I am making here. And that is the point that you seem to be missing.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @USW – is it then equally crazy to fire “precision-guided” missiles at enemy targets when you don’t have complete certainty that you will not injure or kill innocent people?

            Does the level of craziness vary by the number of people affected? The age of the victims? The instrument used?

            Refer also to what I addressed to BottomLine above.

  7. Bottom Line says:

    USW – “We all ned to step back and look at this situation realistically.”

    BL – Indeed. Approaching things with intellectual honesty is key to identifying the root of a problem, which is necessary for a identifying a feasible and/or viable solution.

    But they’re not concerned with honesty. They’re concerned with exploiting the situation in support of whatever their ulterior agenda/motive is, or they themselves are rationalizing responsibility by partially assigning it to others.

    The guy was nuts. That’s why he did it. He alone is to blame. Real simple.

    Whackos like that, that kill in that fashion, do it to become infamous. They are losers and they know it, and they are looking to leave their mark on the world, to become known, infamous. It is a desperate attempt to be something.

    There was probably some delusion based rationalization and subsequent anger for why he picked THAT place and THOSE people, but ultimately, it was likely because he, in some capacity, considered them worthy of his selfish martyrdom.

    What DO you do about a nut that shows no apparent signs and gives virtually no indication that he is going to go shoot a bunch of people up?

    What if the were several people in that parking lot with guns?

    What if the meeting was held indoors, with a few armed guards on duty, and a metal detector at the door?

    You could take away all the guns, spy on everyone, and put all kinds of security measures in place all over society. Someone would/could find a way around it. Assassins will just use bombs or whatever else is handy.

    Anything can potentially be used as a weapon.

    You could outlaw “stuff”.

    Our whole society could live in empty houses and do nothing, and since you can strangle someone with clothing and beat people with shoes, we could all walk around naked too…and there would still be some quiet lunatic out there that learns a martial arts method to snap someone’s neck in a half a second, and gets close enough to someone important to do just that.

    Gun control is not the answer.

    You can outlaw and/or regulate anything derogatory or dissenting said about government anywhere and everywhere in all circumstances and bug the entire country to enforce it.

    Sarah Palin can never utter anything closely resembling any subject that remotely relates to guns, ammo, or targets again, and instead of dissent, could spew out nothing but positive reinforcement pro-status-quo statism propaganda.

    Beck, Limbaugh, all the talking heads, etc… can all abandon their current idealism/philosophy, drop their dissenting views, and promote everything just like Palin…

    …and there will still be homicidal lunatics.

  8. Ray Hawkins says:

    To echo some points I have heard the last 24 hours…..

    We should not be the least bit surprised or act as if the shootings were completely unexpected. If anything, we should come to expect that periodically, someone in America will grab a gun or guns and kill shitloads of people, including public officials, small children, and the elderly. We are the most heavily armed developed nation on Earth (approximately 90 guns for every 100 people, #2 on the list is Yemen with 61 per 100). We are a nation that loves its guns. We are also a nation that despises most all notions of Big Brother being too invasive in our affairs. We are also a nation that despises (generally) any form of gun control whatsoever. So thus we are also a nation that can and should expect more mass killings via firearms. We have intentionally handcuffed ourselves from doing a damn thing about it.

    Please do acknowledge that the Tuscon killer was subdued w/o the use of firearms.

    • Good Morning Ray! Ready for more snow? Their guessing 6-12 here.

      The was a report, early that someone had shot at the shooter, but has not been substantiated. One of the two men who subdued the shooter, was legally armed at the time. If it not for the shooter having to reload when he was taken down, he “could” have been shot by a law abiiding gun owner. What say you, theoretically, had the shooter been shot by a citizen?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        G-Man – I think we’re getting 8-10 down here – the masses are already cleaning out the grocery stores. (always makes me laugh)

        Had the shooter been shot by a citizen? I’d hope it was a kill shot then I’d want to shake his/her hand.

    • Hi Ray…yes he was subdued without guns but one of the “tacklers” was armed and used good judgment not to pull a fire arm for in that close proximity, more would be hurt if he fired. He was interviewed last night and said that he was close enough to tackle without firing so that is what he did.

      • FYI….in Arizona, there are no restrictions on gun ownership….a permit or registration is not even required.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @D13 – simply pointing out that unarmed approaches also work.

        • Understand, Sir…those people should actually be commended…run to the sound of the guns…not away.

          HOw is that boy doing? Have complete control of the household yet?

      • sounds like the only guy using his head in this fiasco

        • Yeah, Nate….it has been my experience that you just react to these things…It is amazing how the mind assess’ the situation and the action required is usually the correct one. THat was a responsible gun owner as 99% of us are.

  9. Ray Hawkins says:

    New term of the week – Armchair Psychiatry

    Guilty thus far = USW, Common Man, TexasChem, Charlie Stella,…….

    😉

    • Alinsky #5

    • You forgot the entire Liberal Media and their lockstep minions! 🙂

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Just remember folks – 24/7 media needs something to fill air time. There is an entire sub-industry devoted to being SME for stuff like this.

      • Justify, justify! What more proof do you neesd Ray?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Anita – that would be as shallow and callous as me just saying “Anita is a bitch” and then saying in response to anyone – “well isn’t it obvious?”

          Determining these facts means quite a bit for remedy specific to this case, and also potentially to how we better position ourselves to prevent the same thing in the future.

          What if the guy is perfectly sane? Maybe the limited (and I emphasize LIMITED) information leaked to the public is shown to be nothing more than posturing or bullshit by the defendant – maybe he is completely sane and knowingly constructs a ruse to embellish the storyline or as a potential “out” in case his plans fail somewhere. Maybe the guy is completely crackers and right now is hopping around his cell like a monkey and eating his own feces. But let’s put the maybe’s aside and allow the proper professionals to complete their work.

          • Ray,

            It’s a shame that this story went where it did. If the media would just stick to known facts, we wouldn’t be having this talk. In this case (Iknow both sides do it), the liberal media went off the cliff with the vitriol/blame game crap. The facts aren’t supporting their position, nad I hope that those that follow the Liberal side will take the high road and call them out. I doubt that will happen, but one can wish.

            Drive carefull in the coming hours/days, looks snowy!

    • Common Man says:

      Ray;

      In yesterday’s comment I said after he was tried and found guilty. He is entitled to a fair trial.

      IF he is found quilty then I cannot think of another way to discribe his actions other than “NUT-JOB”. No sane human would step into a crowd of people and start shooting. This kind of behaivor is not normal.

      And I am one that if he is guilty (sane or not) he should be executed. Spending money to house him for the next 50 years is a waste.

      CM

  10. The scary part of this is that everyone is talking about the “warning signs”. Now that this A-Hole is in cutody, it is amazing how people are now coming forward saying all things about this guy…..after the fact. HOw crazy he was and how they all knew that he was crazy and capable of doing things…up to and including teachers. As I write, there is a tv show on now talking about the public’s responsibility of “turning” this guy in…of having hotlines to call FBI or some such organization on a anonymous basis…..the clear word that I am hearing is….it is ok to tell and cast dispersion on your neighbor just based on the way he dressed…no actions.

    Pissed off at your neighbor? Call the hot line and claim that he/she is mentally unstable. Much like divorced couples use the Child Protective Services to get back at their ex-spouse. In Texas, all one has to do is call child protective services on an anonymous basis and complain and the victim of the call is visited at work or at some other public function, badges flashed, and reputations ruined or affected. I am surprised that TExas allows this but it does and I am against it. So, what to do if you see something that you feel is not right.

    HOw about the hot lines but NO anonymous calls. The perpetrator should be public record if they feel strong enough about it.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “In Texas, all one has to do is call child protective services on an anonymous basis and complain and the victim of the call is visited at work or at some other public function, badges flashed, and reputations ruined or affected. I am surprised that TExas allows this but it does and I am against it. So, what to do if you see something that you feel is not right.”

      What a wonderful world we live in today. No wonder so many people today stay to themselves and avoid others. Every person they meet has the potential to screw up their day or even their life. Everyone is potential State Rat. State Laws and schools even promote children turning in their own parents in the name of “Safety”. “Safety” allows the CPS to do whatever it wants. “Safety” includes protection from emotional abuse. Call your kid a Dumby or spank the child and the full force of CPS comes down on the family and drives a potentially permanent wedge between family members. Now a spoiled child can get what ever he/she wants. Children today come home from school and tell their parents what they are allowed and not allowed to do for discipline. Just say the magic word “Safety” and the State can do almost anything they want.

      Is this how we want to live? Don’t think it can’t happen to you !

      • Hi Puritan. Was only pointing out how easy it is to ruin a life without responsibility….Class mates inform on your parents or your friend.

        I think a lot could be solved by not allowing anonymous reports. I do not buy the fact that anonymous saves lives, as some put it…..but actually cost lives….in reputations alone. So waht do do? I simply do not know.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          Hello D13, Wasn’t ranting at you if that’s what you are wondering. I agree with you and what you suggest about no anonymous calls is a good start.

    • Pissed off at your neighbor? Call the hot line and claim that he/she is mentally unstable.(Can be fatal)

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338571/Douglas-Zerby-shot-dead-police-holding-GARDEN-HOSE-nozzle-gun-chief-admits.html

  11. USW Said: There are calls coming from members of Congress for the FCC to take action to stop the rhetoric that comes from right leaning media personalities such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (oddly those who make those calls never seem to mention Olbermann or Maddow).

    Maybe that’s because Glen Beck says stuff like this:

    Glen “Chalkboard” Beck said: Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. 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 — is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, “Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,” and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, “Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.” And you know, well, I’m not sure.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

    Is anyone aware of similar style rhetoric coming from Olbermann or Maddow? Ever? Want more? OK, here you go:

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

    (I’m not going to include more links because I don’t want to get held up in USW’s approval queue.. some quick googling can find these easily enough)

    Michael Savage Said: To fight only the al-Qaida scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders … Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that’s who.

    Note that this means a policy difference makes you an enemy equal to al-Qaida. This seems to be a theme: dissent equals disloyalty to America. It’s easy to see how this, in an echo chamber, could get inside a person’s head.

    Rush Limbaugh Said: I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus – living fossils – so we will never forget what these people stood for.

    So don’t kill them all, but Rush is actively telling people here that they should kill liberals?

    Rep. James Hansen (R-UT) Said: Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him [Bill Clinton].

    Hyperbole? Probably. But should elected officials be calling for (even in jest) the assassination of the President? How would this have gone over if a liberal had said it about Bush?

    And you’ll note that I’m picking and choosing here – I’m not quoting some idiot blogger (no offense to USW, a smart blogger) whose living in his mother’s basement and spewing vitriol. I’m quoting major right wing political figures: a congressman, Rush, Beck, Savage, Coulter. Show me the same types of people on the left spewing this same crap. Not Bob Cesca and his ilk, but big names: Huffington, a congressman/woman, Olbermann, Maddow, Biden (he’s probably your best bet with his foot-in-mouth disease).

    And just one more for good measure:

    Sean Hannity Said: I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo: every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress.

    How can anyone say this isn’t insightment to violence? Why? Because he probably didn’t mean it literally? That’s like shouting fire in a crowed theater, but taking no responsibility when someone is trampled to death because you meant it as a satirical comment. And he’s one of the ones always preaching about personal responsibility.

    I’m not saying free speech should be curbed, nor am I specifically necessarily blaming it for what happened in Arizona. I’m just saying that I can certainly understand where people might get the impressions that they do.

    Deep breaths everyone, it’s going to be a long day. A foot and a half of snow predicted for tonight, and the raptors my house under siege.

    • heh heh…

    • Matt,

      Hate rhetoric is a two way street, and has been going on for a long time, here’s a lenghthy list on the actions of the left:

      http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

      The issue I have with the media, is they just assumed it was vitriol, and went on the attack. Blame Beck, blame Palin, blame the tea partiers, this is how the Liberal media acts. All that they have shown me is that the Liberal/Progressive Agenda is based on LIES. Too bad that so many good people have fallen for the bullshit, now they just join in and march lockstep all in the name of a LIE.

      • These are minor individuals – I could offer you up tens of thousands of average citizens, small-time comedians, bloggers, artists, etc who have authored violent rhetoric against liberals. I’m not surprise you have this list of violent people who authored violent rhetoric/images/etc from the left.

        I gave you Beck, Limbaugh, a congressman, Hannity. You gave me a list of nobodies. Admittedly I didn’t read the whole page (it was quite lengthy), and I’m sure there was a name or two I’m familiar with, but what I posted and what you posted are hardly analogous.

        And, again, my main point is that this environment is not conducive to civilized debate and working together and achieving things. Both sides do it (though I think 60-40). Both sides. Both. And they both need to cool it.

        .. but your side is worse than mine 😉

        • I could counter with Olberman and Maddow, then I realized nobody listens to them anyway 🙂

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Can you counter with Olberman and Maddow? I don’t recall coming across any quotes by either of them to actually kill Pres. Bush or other elected GOP leaders.

            I’d be curious if there was such a statement ever made.

            • I’d be curious if there was such a statement ever made.

              See, you don’t listen to them either, and since noone listens, how would anyone know? Actually, I was being humorous. I don’t think anyone in the public forum, regardless of politics, should call for the killing of anyone. But, both sides do it occassionally. I don’t watch or listen to these folks, as I talk here, I’m listening to some country music. Other than a good movie, some sports and maybe NCIS, I rarely watch TV.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I do listen at times – never heard such a statement and have never reach about such a statement to the best of my recollection.

                I occassionally tune in to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity et. al. – it seems like practically every time there is a statement bordering (if not outright crossing) this line.

              • Sucks to be them. A life full of constant criticism is not much of a life, unless you have leather for skin.

              • G-Man,
                Instead of constantly evading, why don’t you answer the question?

                Or admit you’re wrong.

              • I did. “I’d be curious if there was such a statement ever made”

                If you’d spend more time reading instead of being so quick on the confrontaion button, would would have seen it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And I would be curious as well. Have you been able to dig anything up? I haven’t…

              • Your kidding right-I don’t know if Olbermann has ever actually used words that say straight out lets hurt someone. But he uses the words racist, homophobic, worst person in the world, and even attacks the whole south as often as he can. If you do not see these words the way Olbermann uses them(as a very loud hate filled rant) as weapons to incite people-you are not being honest with yourself.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                There is a huge difference between calling someone a ‘racist’ and calling someone ‘an evil, anti-American socialist who is actively trying to destroy your way of life’.

                If you do not see the difference, that you are not being honest with yourself.

                Todd, Mathius, and I have all unequivocally stated that the hatred and vitriol is found on both sides of the aisle.

                However, I still wait for an example of a statement by Olbermann or Maddow that comes close to that spouted by Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, etc. etc. etc.

              • Then you need to hear his remarks through my ears. You think being called a socialist or unAmerican is worse-We on the right have also been called un American-and being called a hate filled monster, who hates everyone who isn’t white, that would gladly let people starve and grandma die-is just as bad. They are both bad, which was my point-if we are talking about inciting people with our words-Olbermanns are just as powerful and just as bad as ones Matt posted that were made by the right. Which one is worse-does it really matter-We hear words differently-we can’t help it. And quite frankly I couldn’t care less what Olbermann says-if his words offend me-I change the channel or I say a rant or two myself. What I’m not gonna do is blame him if someone kills somebody and points a finger at him-it wouldn’t be his fault.

              • Here Buck, While I agree that the assclowns walk both sides of the aisle, this might feed your curiousity.

                http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/12/keith-olbermann-says-joe-lieberman.html

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Can’t listen to the audio at work, but that would definitely be a valid example.

                To VH above – there is still an enormous difference between calling someone a racist and saying someone should kill another. Both should be left out of political debate, but do not try to say these two statements are one and the same.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                On a side note it is interesting that it took mere seconds to find a handful of statements made by Beck et. al., and hours to find a single similar statement by Olbermann. And still nothing on Maddow.

              • Hi Buck,

                I searched once on Olberman and found that. Maddow seems to be very anti-hate speech, which is a good thing. You should find Beck very quickly, all he has to do is talk and the liberal media attacks. Pre 2008 election, I watched all of them for a short time, I didn’t like any of them so I haven’t listened to them since. Snowing very hard right now! I’m still not sure what the point of this little exercise is, can you expand down below.

        • Not at all convinced that my side is worse-let’s look at media matters-they investigate everyone-they make it a point of taking things out of context and twisting peoples meanings-if one wants to talk about an attempt to create misunderstanding and cause problems with communication-or even pushing peoples buttons-media matters is a big one. Constantly screaming that people are supporting hate could be just as responsible for causing a nut to hurt someone as anything you posted by the Repubs, that is if I believed it was the true cause.

          http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23079

          This is a very long article 😦

    • Bottom Line says:

      Matt,

      You’re giving Beck, Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, Hansen, and Hannity a lot of credit.

      Why must we obey the media talking heads?

      Are they somehow gods without anyone telling me or something?

      Can you please explain to me how they are responsible for some nut with a gun on a killing spree?

      • Because they have the big microphones. The guy shouting for a revolution on a soap box on the street corner has no influence. Beck (who could easily be the guy on a soap box on the street corner) has a lot of influence and reaches tens of millions.

        What he says gets repeated and picked up by others. His words carry weight. Joe Nobody’s words are not as powerful.

        Surely this is plain to see. (BL responds: It’s not plain to me, and don’t call me Shirley!)

        • Bottom Line says:

          “And don’t call me Shirley” – “Airplane” – 1980

          Because they have the big microphones, influence, reach tens of millions, because their words are powerful and carry weight?

          What makes them so powerful? Are they gods?

          Why must we obey their so-called powerful words?

          If I get a big microphone, does that give me influence and make me a god too?

          • It’s not about being a God and being blindly obeyed. But influence is proportional to the number of people you reach with your message.

            This is common sense.

            Powerful people influence the news cycle. They influence people en masse. You cannot do this. If you had a big microphone (ie, a nationally syndicated radio show with an audience north of 10mm), your statements would affect more people.

            If you (with your big mic) called for the violent overthrow of the government, you would have a greater effect on society than if you (sans mic) called for the violent overthrow of the government.

            • Matt,

              I agree, I’ll use the 2008 election, millions of intelligent people were convinced to go anal and vote for Obama.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Matt – “It’s not about being a God and being blindly obeyed.”

              BL – Exactly…or rather It’s about NOT being a blindly obeyed God.

              Matt – “But influence is proportional to the number of people you reach with your message.”

              BL – Influence is proportional to the people allowing themselves to be influenced.

              Just because Hannity advocates killing people from a different political party, doesn’t mean we all have to run out and kill someone with different beliefs.

              THIS is common sense.

              To suggest that talking heads have the godlike power to make people do things deflects from the personal responsibility of their audience, implies that people aren’t individuals with minds of their own.

              I know there are some stupid people in the world, but c’mon.

              If your favorite all powerful and influential media personality told you to burn down your neighbor’s house, jump off a bridge, wage war against the government, etc… would you do it?

              • BL, Wuz Uuup!

                The big progressive lie which points at alternate entities to avoid the issue of personnal responsibility, to further their government control agenda, which of course is based on lame excuses and lies. Blame the loudest enemy to shut them up, control, control. The Liberal media were really good at this, and might have worked if not for the AGW being proved as a L/P Lie. This recent event just confirms that they have no credibility and their minions are clawing at anything to protect the LIES.

              • Why are they lies? If we assume for the moment that you’re right and we/they are wrong, lie implies INTENT.

                Have you seen anything to suggest that they don’t believe what they say and are advocating?

                This goes to the heart of what I’ve been saying: you ascribe malicious intent to those who disagree with you, then you can never see eye to eye.

                If they’re wrong you can argue with them, debate it and reach a consensus. If they’re lying then they’re evil and trying to manipulate and control you and are, thus, enemies.

                See how this type of knee-jerk destroys civil discourse?

              • “Why are they lies? If we assume for the moment that you’re right and we/they are wrong, lie implies INTENT.”

                Correct. I’m saying, in no other terms, that the Liberal/Progressive Agend/Movement is pushed by the use of lies. The INTENT is to achieve their L/P Agenda.

                “Have you seen anything to suggest that they don’t believe what they say and are advocating?”

                NO, they know exactly what they are doing, there are books that provide blueprints for their actions.

                “This goes to the heart of what I’ve been saying: you ascribe malicious intent to those who disagree with you, then you can never see eye to eye.”

                They are not disagreeing with me, they are lying, and I’m calling them out. It’s up to them to prove that they are telling the truth, which they have failed miserably.

                “If they’re wrong you can argue with them, debate it and reach a consensus. If they’re lying then they’re evil and trying to manipulate and control you and are, thus, enemies.”

                Wrong is wrong, there is no gray consensus to reach. They use lies to convince people they are right, which is wrong. Correct on the last line, liers are trying to manipulate and control, even without a political agenda.

                I’ll be glad to answer your questions, and will do so politely! 🙂

              • Bottom Line says:

                Sup G!

                I’m not sure the big lie is exclusive to the progressives. I see the political scene in general as a big bunch of lies.

                But I get your point.

                This relates to what I mentioned above in my post(#7) about intellectual honesty.

                People in politics are too busy dealing with society’s issues relative to their agendas. Rather than than taking a good honest hard look at what’s REALLY going on, thus being able to find a workable solution,…

                …they conjure up some bizarre rationalization as to what the problem is, and then find a solution that coincides with their agenda.

                Their problems get solved, society’s problems don’t.

              • I can hang with your assessment. My point is to take away the lies of the L/P agenda, which would be a big start to fixing many of the problems we have today. One step at a time!

    • Mathius

      I happened to have heard the Glenn Beck routine on Moore. I believe we have commented on it once before.

      The context in which Media Matters tries to portray this causes me to question their motives. You see, the point of Beck’s routine was that despite the fact people like Moore make us angry, we need to step back and think. We need to fight against the urge to act out violently.

      But notice how all that is lost by how the words are presented and used by someone else who has a preconceived notion about Beck.

      I never heard the others so can not comment on the context.

      And while I have heard Olberman spout stuff that is similar I have never heard anything like that from Maddow. I think USW was wrong to use her as an example unless he has something.

      On the other hand, there was another female radio talking head on Air America at the same time as Maddow who I did hear spew this kind of stuff. Along with Ed Shultz and his buddies on “Ring of Fire”. Oh, and then there was that Democrat Congressman from Florida.

      You know, the guy the Progressive’s have been calling their “fallen hero”.

      • JAC. I was going to respond to your post, but then I reached the end where you used that obnoxious “Democrat Congressman” term so often employed as a pejorative by right wing hacks. Maybe this was a typo on your end (since I generally don’t think you’re so petty), but the term is “Democratic.” If you’d like to repost or retract/amend, I’ll be happy to respond.

        • GEEEEZ! Talk about petty Matt. Speech Police!

          Obviously I can’t hang today….I’m outta here! See yas!

          • Anita, I’m not sure whether I should say anything or just leave you alone-So I’m just gonna say-I hope you are alright. You seem a little to angry today for it to just be about the relatively normal comments that are being made on this blog today.

        • What’s wrong with saying democrat? I haven’t heard of this-I’m a republican you are not a democrat you are a democratic?

          • Mathius is a registered Democrat. – Correct

            Mathius belongs to the Democrat Party. – Wrong

            Mathius belongs to the Democratic Party. – Correct

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29#Modern_usage

            Democrat is not an adjective. When used this way, it’s frequently as a pejorative. The adjective form of Democrat (n) is Democratic. I think, with the exception of people like Limbaugh who use it exclusively (and obviously) as a pejorative, it’s mostly just a nails-on-the-chalkboard thing. Although, occasionally, people will emphasize the end intentionally to say “Democ-rat Party”, and that’s pretty obvious and obnoxious as well.

            And besides, it’s flat out wrong grammatically.

        • Everyone keep your eye on Mathius. He has become obsessed with grammar. And we now know where that leads….

          😉

      • You mean this guy JAC? The one MSNBC (on the Ed Show no less) now has on as a guest to condemn hate speech?

        http://nation.foxnews.com/nbc/2011/01/11/no-joke-nbc-news-has-grayson-condemn-hate-speech

    • Dang it Matt-Now I have to go look for context and I really don’t have time 😦 but on the surface this looks really bad. Even joking these are over the top. Have to admit that Ann usually makes me laugh, sometimes it’s a guilty laugh because I realize she does it on purpose to sell books. I just think anyone with any sense realizes that she is just trying to sell books. Still don’t see any solution that isn’t worse than the problem. And I think that nuts are nuts and political rhetoric doesn’t have anything to do with their actions-it’s just a convenient excuse and if they didn’t have politics to blame it on, they would find something else because they are crazy.

      • I’m not advocating for anything other than people making these comments to try to exercise some better judgment – surely that’s something we can all get on board with.

        And yes, I did end that sentence with a preposition. Deal with it. 🙂

    • “I’m not saying free speech should be curbed, nor am I specifically necessarily blaming it for what happened in Arizona. I’m just saying that I can certainly understand where people might get the impressions that they do.

      Deep breaths everyone, it’s going to be a long day. A foot and a half of snow predicted for tonight, and the raptors my house under siege.”

      Matt, I agree saying someone should be killed crosses a line. An educated person should be able to make a point without touching on violence. But I wonder, as you keep shoveling out massive amounts of right-wing wrongs, do you believe in karma?

      http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/44185/widespread-snowstorm-takes-aim.asp

      Want to talk about global warming????????????

      • Weather != Climate

        And beside, Raptors are cold blooded. I think the snow storm should help end the siege early. So maybe this snow storm is a good thing.

    • Show me the same types of people on the left spewing this same crap. Not Bob Cesca and his ilk, but big names: Huffington, a congressman/woman, Olbermann, Maddow, Biden (he’s probably your best bet with his foot-in-mouth disease).

      Just for the record sir:

      “That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him”

      Now ex-Rep Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), as reported in the Times-Tribune on October 23, 2010.

      (http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/roderick-random/kanjorski-ponders-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#ixzz1AkfiuPKL)

      “You’re damn right, Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him.”

      Ed Schultz, on his show February 24, 2010 (While not Olbermann or Maddow, he is one of the better known commentators).

      We know it happens all over, so when shall we all move past the “who said worst more often?”

      • There ya go! Everyone sucks.

        Now, can we all just cool it?

        And for the record, Dick Cheney’s heart is not a political football. Everyone knows he has no heart is is kept alive through black magic by drinking the blood of virgins by the light of the full moon.

        • And all this time, I thought you were an educated, state of the world man…..EVERYONE knows that the blood of virgins went out a long time ago…there are not any left…

          It is Unicorn blood during an eclipse…..get with it man.

          Raptors still have you under seige….Tribute is demanded.

      • the five most infamous Rahmbo tales. It’s the stuff legends are made of:

        “1. Mailing a Dead Fish

        “Emanuel is known for his panache for treating donors right. He sends them cheesecakes from Eli’s, the famous Chicago bakery. But the one pollster who notoriously ticked off Rahmbo received a 2 1/2 foot decomposing fish in the mail — ripe, stinky, and to the point.

        “2. Fundraising the Bugsy Siegel Way

        “His foray into fundraising started in Chicago while campaigning for Mayor Richard Daley’s reelection, when Emanuel raised a record number of donations. His sales pitch was simple enough: He’d tell contributors he found their offers so low it was embarrassing and then hang up on them. Mortified, the donors were shamed into calling back and giving more.

        “3. Nearly Losing His Finger

        “When he was a senior in high school, he sliced his finger while working at Arby’s. But instead of seeking medical attention, he decided to celebrate prom night by swimming in Lake Michigan. The bone and blood infection that resulted was so severe it practically killed him. Scrappy and determined, even at death’s door with a fever of 106 degrees, he pulled through, only losing part of his finger.

        “4. Threatening Tony Blair

        “Never a mincer of words, Emanuel didn’t couch his meaning when he offered Tony Blair counsel just before the then British prime minister appeared with President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal: ‘This is important. Don’t – – – – it up.’

        “5. Knifing the Dinner Table

        “The most infamous Rahmbo story of them all is the one that begins with the dinner the night after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Among those present at the dinner table was ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, who watched while an overwrought and clearly exhausted Emanuel began ranting at a long list of Clinton ‘enemies.’ As he shouted each name, he stabbed the table with his steak knife: ‘Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead!’ Apparently, others joined in.

        “The bottom line: If Emanuel’s appointment is a signal of anything, it is that the genteel, arugula-eating president-elect is coming to play hardball.”

        This guy reads like a true psychopath.

        http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Columnists/A_Time_For_Choosing/PALIN_TO_OBAMA_ITS_TIME_FOR_RAHM_EMANUEL_TO_GO/27428

        (Makes me wonder, does he own any guns?????????????)

      • Hateful Days
        By William Rivers Pitt
        t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

        Friday 19 November 2010

        There is a great deal of hate in my heart today. Not the healthiest condition to find myself in, but these things sometimes cannot be helped. The hate is a free-flowing thing, expanding in all directions because, simply put, there is something to revile and despise in virtually every direction I turn. Sarah Palin’s ridiculous reality show was a ratings blockbuster. Hateful. George H. W. Bush is getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom, because Mr. Obama just can’t help sucking up to the very Republicans who are about to make a project out of throttling his administration. Hateful. There will be no punishment for those who destroyed CIA evidence of rampant torture during the Bush administration. Wildly hateful.

        One cannot swing one’s dead cat by the tail these days without striking something that makes me want to give up on this tepid reporting job and take up firebombing.

        http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×9591936

  12. OK, this one maybe, maybe crosses the line, but damn is it funny:

    August 25, 2009—During a GOP barbecue in Twin Falls, Idaho, an audience member asks Rex Rammell, a candidate in the 2010 Idaho Republican Primary, a question about “Obama tags” during a discussion about state-issued tags for wolf hunting. Rammell responds, “The Obama tags? We’d buy some of those.” In a subsequent press release, he adds, “Anyone who understands the law knows I was just joking, because Idaho has no jurisdiction to issue hunting tags in Washington, D.C.”

    • Mathius

      Doesn’t cross the line at all. And yes it was funny.

      • Thus the double-maybe. I think it’s on the safe side. But that’s just my opinion, some may disagree. All I know is that I nearly snorted Red Bull out my nose (BTW, you have no idea how much that burns).

        But even then, it’s easy to see how an unstable person could read this as a suggestion that it would be advisable or good to try to kill the President..

        Again, not suggesting any media controls, nor do I think that we should self censor to the point where we can’t possibly trigger a lunatic. I just think some common sense wouldn’t hurt for the more inflammatory statements (see #11), especially where made by a prominent figure (with great power comes great responsibility).

        • Matt

          I think it would be a far stretch to suggest an unstable person would take this as hint that violence is sanctioned.

          Saying something along the lines of “kill them” I can understand but not this.

          By the way, did it ever occur to you that the talking heads are not inciting the crazy folks but it is actually the other way around?

          • I agree.. that’s why I consider this to be on the safe side.

            I don’t see how the crazies are pushing the talking heads? Chicken/egg? Even if that’s the case, shouldn’t the sane (saner) ones be responsible for putting on the brakes?

  13. I think we could all agree that these church people from Kansas have some issues.

    Tucson, Arizona (CNN) — Tucson just isn’t that kind of town, says Christin Gilmer.

    Gilmer is referring to the actions of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, which has made its name protesting the funerals of people who died of AIDS, gay people, soldiers and even Coretta Scott King.

    But when the church announced its intention to picket the funeral of a 9-year-old girl — one of six people who died Saturday during the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords — Gilmer and others put their feet down.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html?hpt=T1

  14. The left progressive movement is desperate and they are pathetically using this tragedy to try to regain some ground. That is all. Fortunately, all their behavior will do is to make them lose even more followers as their vindictiveness comes out.

    I disagree with you on this USW: “One of the things that I think is driving me even more over the edge at this point are the inevitable calls that more should have been done to identify this man as mentally unstable before this could happen”

    There are now considerable stories coming out about this guy’s history and even several calls to the cops. I don’t know what the laws are regarding mental illness, but even the goofy Sheriff acknowledged there were previous interactions. At what point could/should something have been done by others to at least get him on a list to prevent him from being able to purchase a gun? Are medical privacy laws such that no one can intervene to get help for someone? I’m not sure how I feel about that.

    • That’s funny Kathy. People scream loud and clear any time anyone does anything that might possibly restrict gun ownership.

      But then you are shocked that a crazy person owns a gun.

      “I demand weaker controls! … Hey, why aren’t the controls working?”

      • I was actually asking the question about when, how and who can legally obtain guns and if there is ever a time when someone shouldn’t be allowed.

        • Yes. There are a lot of people who shouldn’t be allowed to own guns – ever.

          The blind.
          The minors.
          The crazies.
          The unstable.
          The incautious.
          The gang member.
          The uncoordinated.
          The easily enraged.
          The overly impulsive.
          The guy in the trench coat.
          The person who loses everything.
          The person who seems to want one just a little too badly.
          And Dick Cheney.

          The million dollar question is how to identify these people..

          • Matt,

            Both of my son’s, eleven and eight, “own” guns. This includes water, BB and 20 gauges. Now go change your shorts before you respond.

            • Can a water gun kill people? No. (Disclaimer, my mother didn’t let me have a water gun as a child because she was afraid it would make me think guns are toys. Also, she is crazy.)

              Can a BB gun kill people? Highly, highly unlikely.

              Can a 20 gauge kill people? Yes.

              And there you have your answer. Children, whose brains are not sufficiently developed for good long term rational thinking and self-control (note, same reason they can’t give legal consent) should not have the power to kill people.

              • Bottom Line says:

                So 17 yr. olds shouldn’t join the service or be tried as adults?

              • 17 is probably too young, to be honest, though it really depends on the person. Some people mature earlier than others. Some “kids” are really adults at 15, other “adults” are really children at age 25.

                But She said ages 8 and 11 – there’s no way they’re brains are fully mature.

              • Matt,

                LOI is a he not a she. I got my frst gun, a .22, at age 5, my first shotgun at age 9, high powered rifle at age 11. I never shot a single person with those guns, and still have them today.

              • Sorry.. thought I was still talking to Anita.. apologies for the gender confusion.

                And, yes, you never shot someone with those guns.. but do you want to play the odds-game with millions of children given the power to kill people?

                Remember, children get very angry and potentially violent very easily, and they don’t always think out long term consequences..

              • Youre arguement of the child’s brain not being fully mature is not completely relevant. The Maturity of a child’s brain does not automatically prevent the child from learning how to properly use and have a proper respect for firearms. I would argue the best time to teach a person proper respect and use of a firearm is when they are a child so it is firmly instilled into who they are as adults. When a minor gains access to a gun should be entirely up to the parents of that child. That being said the parents of that child should be held 100% responsible for the actions of the child in regards to the firearm.

              • Matt,

                “Children should not have the power to kill people”.

                I did leave out that they are under locks, that only my wife and I hold those keys. I am aware of changes in society. After my first hunting lesson, (age 10, ducks & 20ga. single shot)I had access to guns and ammo for the rest of my life.
                Haven’t shot anyone yet, but there’s always tomorrow.

                I am moving towards allowing my oldest access, as his maturity
                level develops. Scary isn’t it? I am teaching my children about self-responsibility.

              • Matt,

                Good parents are responsible and keep guns locked up when children are around. I never allowed my kids to have access to any guns when they were growing up.

            • http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/03/ohio.boy.shooting/

              Kids don’t think so good sometimes.

              • Hello Bob,

                How’s that global warming going there across the pond? I agree, sometimes kids don’t think good. Sometimes they do. Would you like me to post where a kid defended their home from armed intruders?

                If you were to look at the history of the US, you would find it to be more violent, with words and deeds, than democracies in the rest of the world. Add in our gun ownership, and we have more shootings. But all violence crime rates here are dropping, and at nearly an all time low. Weren’t there some riots in the UK not long ago? And this from John Lott….

                (But you can look at other countries around the world. Western europe which has as many of these large multiple victim shooting that’s u.S. Does, though they don’t get the same attention, because, they are in all of these different countries, like germany, for example, has the two worst k-12 public shootings in world history, in the last ten years. But, a year to get a gun, you have to under go a psychological screening test, and there is — there are things that they have to do to get a gun in france or germany or the u.K., Gun control proponents aren’t proposing in the u.S. And yet are not stopping those attacks, that are occurring.)

                Bob, I will bet my life that my children do not shoot me or my wife(and she seems to agree), and will instead grow up to be a very responsible person. I will understand if this means you don’t want to pop over for a visit. And that’s OK. I also bet my friends would be happy to enter my home, and trust in the values I instill in my children, and feel perfectly safe.

              • 50 degrees F here, quite warm really. I really don’t want to get into a gun control debate but if you want to compare deaths by guns per capita it does not look so good.

                Might be going over to Buffalo soon for a week or two, will see what work have in store for me.

              • Glad things have warmed up. Sounded like the snow really hammered you guys for a bit, as it has some regions stateside.

                Never been to Buffalo, Matt or Buck might know a little about it. I like to try different places to eat when I travel, asking if there is a local specialty.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Never been to buffalo. Its too far upstate and gets way too cold and way too much snow in the winter.

                But if you’re looking for a specialty — BUFFALO WINGS!

              • Yeah we got to -13 celcius in December, which is the coldest that I can remember. I lived in Northern Ontario for a couple of years and experienced some -40 though. Still -13 for a country that is not prepared for it caused a lot of trouble, just glad I could work from home.

          • Bottom Line says:

            “The million dollar question is how to identify these people..”

            You can’t.

            You just have to be ready for them when they come.

            • .. or we could strengthen laws regarding who can and cannot own ..

              • Bottom Line says:

                Matt,

                Think.

                Murder is against the law, therefore murder doesn’t happen?

                Speeding is against the law, therefore speeding doesn’t happen?

                If it were MORE laws that crazy people couldn’t own guns, killing sprees wouldn’t happen?

              • No.

                But fewer killing sprees, perhaps.

                Murder is against the law. If it weren’t, I would have done the human race a favor and killed my older brother by now. Because I don’t wish to serve a life sentence (not that any jury would convict me for killing that sociopath), I haven’t done so.

                I speed. But I speed less than I would like because I worry about tickets.

                Laws don’t necessary stop things, but they do help to limit and moderate. Everything in life is a cost-benefit. Law increases the cost to the point where many people are deterred from the illegal action.

                Where the mind is not sound and rational cost-benefit is not considered, that is where the law should step in and try to make it harder for the person to get the gun in the first place.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Matt,

                Laws only deter the deterred.

                If someone wants to break the law, they will.

                Civilized people get along in a society by their own accord, not because of law.

                Uncivilized people don’t care about civility, OR the law.

                Make all the laws you want, there will still be the occasional whacko with a gun on a killing spree.

              • Key word: occasional.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Key words:

                will still be

          • “The million dollar question is how to identify these people..’

            I bet the DHS Communist tip line is on fire today! Napalitano is having an orgasm watching all the lights go off!

    • Kathy,

      Much of this same discussion occurred after the Virginia Tech Massacre. Most states have laws that prohibit the mentally ill from purchasing weapons, but laws are only as good as the systems that apply the law. We aslo just can’t assume that because someone is different, they are mentally ill, that is a very slippery slope to tred. The mentally ill, likely don’t know they are mentally ill, therefore will not seek help. At the same time, those who believe one is mentally ill, may fear reprisals, and don’t speak up at the level needed to force help on a person. Mental illness is not an American problem, it’s all over the world.

      • That’s what I was wondering about G. Thanks for the response. When you hear some of the stories from this guy’s professor and classmates, then hear the sheriff admit there were death threats before (not to this Rep, I believe), why wasn’t he on some list? Would it have been up to his parents?

      • Very true, adding that for an individual like the guy in Tuscon, paranoia plays a roll in making the person actively avoid any sort of treatment. They try to hide their condition (not that they view it as a condition), which makes things even harder.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Arizona has some of the weakest gun control laws in the country. Yes, Arizona restricts gun ownership to the mentally unstable – but only those adjudged by a court to be mentally unstable. Since that never happened, he was able to own a gun.

      I do find Mathius’ comment to you amusing though; he pretty much hit the nail on the head.

  15. Judy Sabatini says:

    I swear, people are getting dumber by the minute
    anymore. When will these morons realize it’s NOT a political thing.
    Nobody’s to blame except for the person who pulled the trigger.. It’s
    NOT Palin’s fault, Beck’s fault, Hannity’s fault, O’Rielly’s fault or
    Bush’s fault. Seems they’ll put the blame everywhere except where it
    really belongs, in the hands of the shooter.

    And, on top of it, Westboro church going to protest the funeral of that little girl. For what purpose? They are lowest form of scum there is.

    Then, you hear about how Al Sharpton wants Limbaugh taken off the radio, why, because he doesn’t like what limbaugh or Hannity, or Savage or any others have to say, calling them racist. What’s so racist about giving your opinion?

  16. Judy Sabatini says:

    Blaming the Right for the Giffords Attack Is Pure McCarthyism
    Monday, 10 Jan 2011 01:40 PM
    Article Font Size

    By George Will

    It would be merciful if, when tragedies such as Tucson’s occur, there were a moratorium on sociology. But respites from half-baked explanations, often serving political opportunism, are impossible because of a timeless human craving and a characteristic of many modern minds.

    The craving is for banishing randomness and the inexplicable from human experience. Time was, the gods were useful. What is thunder? The gods are angry. Polytheism was explanatory. People postulated causations.

    And still do. Hence: The Tucson shooter was (pick your verb) provoked, triggered, unhinged by today’s (pick your noun) rhetoric, vitriol, extremism, “climate of hate.”

    Demystification of the world opened the way for real science, including the social sciences. And for a modern characteristic. And for charlatans.

    A characteristic of many contemporary minds is susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior can be traced to some diagnosable frame of mind that is a product of promptings from the social environment. From which flows a political doctrine: Given clever social engineering, society, and people, can be perfected. This supposedly is the path to progress. It actually is the crux of progressivism. And it is why there is a reflex to blame conservatives first.

    Instead, imagine a continuum from the rampages at Columbine and Virginia Tech — the results of individuals’ insanities — to the assassinations of Lincoln and the Kennedy brothers, which were clearly connected to the politics of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Sirhan Sirhan, respectively. The two other presidential assassinations also had political colorations.

    On July 2, 1881, after four months in office, President James Garfield, who had survived the Civil War battles of Shiloh and Chickamauga, needed a vacation. He was vexed by warring Republican factions — the Stalwarts, who waved the bloody shirt of Civil War memories, and the Half-Breeds, who stressed the emerging issues of industrialization.

    Walking to Washington’s Union Station to catch a train, Garfield by chance encountered a disappointed job-seeker. Charles Guiteau drew a pistol, fired two shots and shouted “I am a Stalwart and Arthur will be president!” On Sept. 19, Garfield died, making Vice President Chester Arthur president. Guiteau was executed, not explained.

    On Sept. 6, 1901, President William McKinley, who had survived the battle of Antietam, was shaking hands at a Buffalo exposition when Leon Czolgosz approached, a handkerchief wrapped around his right hand, concealing a gun. Czolgosz, an anarchist, fired two shots. Czolgosz (“I killed the president because he was the enemy of the good people — the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.”) was executed, not explained.

    Now we have explainers. They came into vogue with the murder of President Kennedy. They explained why the “real” culprit was not a self-described Marxist who had moved to Moscow, then returned to support Castro. No, the culprit was a “climate of hate” in conservative Dallas, the “paranoid style” of American (conservative) politics, or some other national sickness resulting from insufficient liberalism.

    Last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow explained that “the optics must be irritating” to conservatives: Barack Obama is black, Nancy Pelosi is female, Rep. Barney Frank is gay, Rep. Anthony Weiner (an unimportant Democrat, listed to serve Blow’s purposes) is Jewish. “It’s enough,” Blow said, “to make a good old boy go crazy.” The Times, which after the Tucson shooting said “many on the right” are guilty of “demonizing” people and of exploiting “arguments of division,” apparently was comfortable with Blow’s insinuation that conservatives are misogynistic, homophobic, racist anti-Semites.

    On Sunday, the Times explained Tucson: “It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or tea party members. But . . . ” The “directly” is priceless.

    Three days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the tea party movement is “the last gasp of the generation that has trouble with diversity.” Rising to the challenge of lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse, Dean smeared tea partyers as racists: They oppose Obama’s agenda, Obama is African-American, ergo . . .

    Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation of liberals whose default position in any argument is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left — devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data — is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.

  17. Hi Judy 🙂

    Nice of you to join the fray! This statement: This McCarthyism of the left — devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data — is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.

    This is the long version of “Liberal Progressivism is a big LIE”

    PEACE!

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hey G

      Just thought I’d share what I got through Email a little while ago. I’ve been reading along when I can, just haven’t been saying much.

      Hope you’re doing well, & you guys don’t get buried too deep in snow there.

  18. I find it interesting that so many of you are now so worried about getting the “facts” before you make a judgment. But you usually have no problem spinning some “liberal” story or posting conspiracy theories as if they are fact.

    This is an act carried out by a mentally unstable individual. No more and no less.

    First, please provide some facts to back this up.

    Second, nothing exists in a vacuum.

    A cursory look at his writings finds no mention of any of the GOP talking heads (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin), the Tea Party, or anything else that makes him a “conservative shooter.”

    You don’t think this sounds just like SUFA???

    The majority of citizens in the united states of America have never read the united states of America’s constitution.

    You don’t have to accept the federalist laws.

    Reading the second United States constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No!

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

    Ok, the “grammar” part is just weird, but the rest of it could come right from SUFA.

    Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (oddly those who make those calls never seem to mention Olbermann or Maddow).

    Please show me where Olbermann or Maddow made references to violence?

    Beck and Limbaugh are certainly polarizing figures, but their anger and spin is so well received because those who tune in are already angry.

    Yes. And feeding that anger is stupid. That the problem! Can’t you see that?

    • Todd-you say we shouldn’t feed that anger-I find myself in conflict because I do realize that words can push buttons. but to go so far as to say they cause another human to kill is going too far for me. If a person is pushed beyond self control it is not because of something someone has said-it is because of something that has happened in that persons life. They are reacting to their personal grievances. No one has to tell them it is so and so’s fault. I don’t like the effect the government has had in my life. No one had to tell me-I hear the words and some of them simply agree with what I already knew. I agree that people should be more civil and that talking heads should censor themselves but I simply so not extend that into blame being put on their shoulders if a person snaps and hurts someone.

      • VH,

        but to go so far as to say they cause another human to kill is going too far for me.

        How about the saying “The Pen is Mightier than the Sword”?
        How about the multi-billion dollar industry called “advertising”?

        Words and images have a great impact on us all. And I’ve said before – if someone is already on the edge, words can push them over.

        I’m not saying “blame” the talking-heads and put them in jail, or pass laws to limit free speech. I’m saying tone down the rhetoric so we can discuss issues. We disagree on issues. We’re not enemies…

    • Also-you pointed out that part of this “sounds like SUFA” A good portion of SUFA is debating ideas on principals-talking about the meaning of words, talking about the Constitution. So what are you saying -that we shouldn’t discuss these issues because somehow this will upset some unknown person. Does this make sense to you-are we supposed to be more civil are actually stop talking at all. I am confused by your remark.

      • Bottom Line says:

        V.H. – “I am confused by your remark.”

        BL – So is he.

        He hasn’t yet clearly defined personal responsibility.

        He still thinks everyone is everyone else’s responsibility, that our minds and every aspect of our lives are all joined together by some mythical force called social responsibility.

        🙂

      • VH,
        Sorry, I wasn’t clear – see the Bold part:

        A cursory look at his writings finds no mention of any of the GOP talking heads (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin), the Tea Party, or anything else that makes him a “conservative shooter.

        USWeapon claims Jared Loughner writings are not conservative. What I listed above sounds a lot like the stuff on SUFA. You seem to agree.

        I’m not saying you shouldn’t talk about that stuff. It just seems Jared Loughner shares a lot of your same grievances.

  19. G-Man,
    To answer some of your questions from yesterday:

    Why was a Congresswomen at a puplic event

    The Congresswoman was there because it was her event!

    one hour from the Mexican border

    Because that’s where her district is! Why does the border matter? Was the shooter Mexican???

    Why was a very conservative Federal Judge there?

    Because he was a friend of Gabby. I know that’s hard for you to comprehend…

    Have you put any effort into find out the facts about this? Because this information has been readily available from the start…

    • Typical. “Have you put any effort into find out the facts about this? Because this information has been readily available from the start”

      Your posts might someday show some credibilty. Cherry picking lacks intellect.

      The question was “Why was a Congresswomen at a puplic event, one hour from the Mexican border, not provided with security, considering her pro-border security stance and all the threats sent to politicians in that state? In case you can’t comprehend the English language, the question pertained to security.

      And the second question, which you conveniently cherry picked “Why was a very conservative Federal Judge there? (It’s illegal for Federal Judges to attend political rallies).

      How about actually showing some credibility, maybe we can actually have a legitimate discussion.

      • Yesterday!

        Todd said
        January 10, 2011 at 5:38 pm
        For those of you who believe Glenn Beck does not have an impact on his listeners:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html

        My reply:

        G-Man said
        January 10, 2011 at 6:39 pm
        There you go Todd, trying to use Left Wing OPINION to state facts. Let’s look at the FACTS:

        Williams, on parole for bank robbery, told investigators that he wanted “to start a revolution” by “killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU,” according to a police affidavit. His mother, Janice, told the San Francisco Chronicle that her son had been watching television news and was upset by “the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items.”

        Amazing, no mention of Beck. However, the author dug up some stuff and ASSUMED that he must have been watching Beck. With little regard to truth, the author simply assumes that this correct. It could also be ASSUMED that he was watching MSNBC (Ohlberman or Maddow) in one of their constant attacks against Beck and FOX News.

        Is this another example of a liberal puppy dog jumping on the fat womens lap? How about some real facts rather than more Liberal rhetoric.

        Like I said above, an attempt at credibilty would be welcome.

        • G-Man,
          I’m glad you brought this one forward, cause I was going to do that.

          trying to use Left Wing OPINION to state facts

          So now the Washington Post is Left Wing? Part of the Lame-Stream-Media, huh? That’s one of the stupidest comments I’ve ever read here…

          I find it truly amazing that someone who can make up a conspiracy theory that connects smart-bombs and commercial jets, can’t follow the dots when they actually exist.

          Actually, I guess it’s not that amazing. You’re not really looking for the truth or facts, just trying to spin everything to fit your narrow little right-wing view.

          You’ll have to have that “legitimate discussion” with the fat lady who’s lap you’re sitting on.

          • WOW, So since you can’t defend your credibilty, it’s always easier to attack the person. Lazy, Left Wing response that lacks maturity and intellect.

      • G-Man,

        In case you can’t comprehend the English language, the question pertained to security.

        I understood the question. It’s just the cheap right-wing “editorial” comments I enjoy so much.

        I thought you were all for town hall meetings and open government? But now you’re suggesting all members of congress should have security details to keep the public away?

        Time to pick one – you can’t have it both ways…

        It’s illegal for Federal Judges to attend political rallies

        Is a “Congress on Your Corner” event a political rally? I’m not sure. But you thought it was a coincidence the judge was there. It was not. He was a friend of Gabby and stopped by to see her.

        Again, this information was readily available from day one, but you missed it. How much research have you actually done on this?

        • “But now you’re suggesting all members of congress should have security details to keep the public away?”

          So security keeps people away? That is simply dillusional. It’s bad enough to lack credibilty, now your working on your integrity. 😳

  20. There’s none so blind as those who will not see!!!!!!!

    “sign” Now I feel better and I didn’t have to rant. 🙂

    • I was in charge of ranting today 🙂 You rant some other day. I appreciate your kind words above. Today was just one of those days. I see I got a backdoor snipe anyway. wuddayagonnado? And FTR: Nothing else was bothering me today and then…….

      • Hey Lioness! 🙂

        Hope your day is better!

        • Sorry multitasking with 7th grade homework too! My day started fine G but somewhere around 9am it got derailed. Oh well tomorrow’s another day Meow 🙂

  21. A foriegn post…regarding the shooting:


    ….virtually no one is pointing out the obvious.

    Government, by its very nature, must necessarily rely upon violence in order to perpetuate itself.

    Constantly, and without relent, bureaucrats all up and down the pecking order threaten us with violence in order to control our lives and property in a manner most consistent with their ideas of how we should be living and what our money and other belongings should be utilized for.

    It is literally as if we are being repeatedly punched in the face and kicked in the groin 24/7 – and then when someone, somewhere decides to hit back wildly, when someone finally snaps under the pressure, there is a collective indignant awe; a kind of shocked repulsive reflex: “What a crazed right-wing nut!” “Look what Rush Limbaugh did now!” “These tea-partiers are sickos!”

    Truth is, friends, not only are such hollow diatribes woefully inaccurate – they miss the point entirely.

    These same accusers of the political right as the source of all earthly evil fail utterly to just look at themselves in a mirror once in a while.

    Just like the right-wing, they advocate for the existence of a monopolistic institution that uses violence on a routine basis in order to domineer the lives and property of others – yet strut around pompously as such moral, peace-loving, “sensitive” individuals.

    Make no mistake: Behind those rose-colored glasses, behind that ebullient smile, behind that fun-loving facade is a cop in riot gear with a baton, pepper spray, and a shotgun.

    Behind all the lip service to higher ideals is an orders-following soldier, a machine gun, a cache of bombs.

    There is nothing moral or peaceful about using government as a vehicle by which to shape the world in your image at the expense of someone else’s liberty.

    To suggest otherwise is a pathetic sham, and flagrant dishonesty – to say nothing of intellectual bankruptcy.

    No sane person, of course, is going to defend these shootings – especially since several of the victims were just innocent bystanders, not government employees.

    Violence simply begets violence, and yet another wrong doesn’t make a right.

    That said, it is high time to grow up and realize that government behaves no differently as a constant matter of its very existence.

    Is anyone going to seriously contend that this is an acceptable manner for human beings to interact with one another?

    Look, all that Voluntaryists/Libertarians/Anarchists (all synonymous terms) are saying is that we can do much better. In fact, if we’re going to survive as a species, we’d better – sooner rather than later. And all it takes is growing up, and living according to reality, instead of the deadly fantasy known as government.

  22. Buck the Wala says:

    Hey G,

    Unsure what you mean when you ask ‘what’s the point’ — what’s the point with what? The initial point in finding Olbermann and Maddow quotes was just a demonstration that, despite the hatred spewed on both sides, the ‘right’ talking heads have been actively calling for individuals’ assassination whereas I (and others) were unable to recall any similar comments made by the ‘left’ talking heads. The point that it took so much longer to find a single equivalent comment made by someone on the ‘left’ just goes towards that initial point.

    We’re looking for the snow to head our way tonight. It better be a good one because I am in no mood to show up at work tomorrow! Enjoy the snow!

    • Outstanding! I hope we can put talking about worthless talking heads on TV to rest. After all, nobody’s holding a gun to anybodys head to watch them. I do find it odd that the Liberal media was quick to blame the right. Sad journalism there.

      We have 8 inches, expecting 6-12 more. I like snow!!!

    • Buck,

      How many of the Beck results listed Media Matters? Think it’s just a coincidence or does Soros get his money’s worth? They have figured out how to manipulate search engines.

      Flag, would be nice if you could verify my statement, being a computer and all.

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20017351-265.html

      • LOI,

        I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if Beck was the most searched name today. The left wingers are in full claw mode to try to justify the BS that their Left wing media hacks wrote. I’d bet millions marched in lockstep and now need a red herring to defer attention from the piss poor jounalism attributed to their favorite hacks.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Plenty of links through Media Matters and plenty of links through other sites…

        However that really doesn’t matter in this particular exercise – regardless of who is linking to Beck’s statement it is still Beck’s statement.

        • Buck

          There was nothing wrong with his statement. It was a one man play of sorts, the objective of which was to get people to think about their actions.

          Beck has been preaching non violence for two years, due to his personal concern for a meltdown. His rhetoric in making his case is inflammatory at times but he always comes back to the non violence Goal.

          I can’t comment on others except Limbaugh from time to time. He is doing the exact same thing today he was doing 15 years ago.

          So if this example of Beck, provided by MM and others, is not what it is portrayed by them to be, what am I supposed to think about the other stuff they put out?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I’m tired of hearing how Beck has been preaching non-violence for two years, all the while he makes statements as to how evil and anti-American those on the left are; while making statements like that posted by Mathius above.

            Does MM and other sites take things out of context? Sure, much like Beck himself takes things the Pres and others say out of context to make his point. But its hard to argue that all of these statements are just innoculous and completely out of context when you can link to the audio/video tape.

            • Buck

              I don’t claim any judgment on the other references Mathius provided. I didn’t hear them.

              I did listen to that particular show of Becks in its entirety.

              The issue is not that MM or Beck take things out of context. It is that in this case MM and others are deliberately distorting, ie. changing, the meaning of what it was he said. They are making a positive message look negative because of the words he used leading up to the grand finale.

              You can be as sick of it as you want, but what you are now saying is that we can not identify evil when we see it or claim socialism as an anti-American concept and at the same time support peaceful means of stopping the invasion.

              In effect this is associating derogatory statments about “Liberal”, “leftists” or “socialists” or “progressives” with HATE SPEECH and the INCITING OF MURDER.

              And of course once we go that far, the eventual end of this approach is CENSORSHIP. You can claim you don’t support it but you will have help sow the seeds that produced it.

              President Obama is a Fascist Progressive hell bent on remaking this country in the Progressive image. He does not have a particular affection for the Constitution or the principles on which it was based. He said so himself. That is what it means when you say the document should be based more on “positive rights”.

              Progressive goals violate the basic principles on which this nations was founded. They are an insult to the blood spilled in the Revolution.

              So is this “hate mongering”? Is this inciting violence among the mentally deranged? Are we to stop speaking our minds or just take away the individual words that accurately describe what we see or believe?

              Or should we do as the left have been doing for the last 100 years. Just change the meaning so that nobody can understand what we are talking about?

              Where do you draw the line and who gets to draw it? You say you are tired of hearing about Beck’s call for peaceful refounding of our nation, because he uses inflammatory rhetoric to hit home the key points of who we are dealing with. Yet you seem to share the values of those I have mentioned who use the same language but forget to mention the “peaceful revolution” idea at the end.

              These are very delicate issues and potentially dangerous times. I have no problem with attacking the heated rhetoric and distortions using an individual and targeted approach. That is why I defended Maddow above. The few times I have seen her, she does a pretty good job. Sometimes a little snarky or arrogant but still a good approach.

              But we need to avoid these broad and wholesale condemnations of the rhetoric of one side vs. the other. All the left media talk has accomplished in the last four days is to confirm their evil intent to the right, and to confirm their righteousness to the left.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Come on JAC, there is a huge difference between labelling someone a ‘racist’ or ‘homophobe’ or ‘statist’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ or ‘socialist’ on the one hand and describing someone as an ‘un-American traitor who should be shot and killed’ or ‘every leftist should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo’ on the other. The two are simply not the same.

                Beck may often end his show on a positive note, but that doesn’t mean we give him a pass on everything he says leading up to that zen moment. When you actively talk about killing another on your show, you can’t sidestep that simply by saying “But we really shouldn’t kill Michael Moore; that would be wrong. Until next time folks!” Doesn’t cut it in my book.

                Will try to be around today, but going to be a busy one for me. Not enough snow to close the office and a lot to get done by week’s end.

              • You skipped right over the point JAC was making which is labeling dissent as hate speech to try to shut us up. This includes you too Buck not just conservatives. Freedom of speech? Keep down this path and no one will be able to speak. We barely can as it is.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Once again – and for the last time – no one here on SUFA is advocating for, or in support of, restrictions on speech.

                All we on the left are arguing for is exactly what you on the right keep asking for to begin with – personal responsibility!

            • Buck

              By the way, I forgot to mention that there is a simple solution to all this “inflammatory rhetoric” that does not require public condemnation or govt censorship.

              I’ll give you until tomorrow to think about it.

              Also tomorrow I hope to continue our discussion of living document and the “Commerce Clause”.

  23. Oh Anita – turn on the Badger eating Sparty game. Something more for you to be angry about today!!!

  24. Don’t think this is a “look at me” moment for this president? Check out how attentive he is to all the victims and those involved (and makes sure we know about it):

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/obama-phones-sheriff-dupnik-families-of-the-victims-the-heroes-and-giffords-rabbi.html

    • Bottom Line says:

      He is supposed to speak tomorrow in some type of memorial ceremony.

      I wonder if he’ll give any shout-outs.

    • But how he normally chooses to respond when no one is looking (even at their request):

      http://www.therightscoop.com/obama-calls-about-michael-vick-but-wont-call-fallen-soliders-family

      We think the left is using this tragedy as an opportunity to extend their ideology? This president is using this tragedy as a major PR event. The media is doing all it can to help. How many references to how OK City turned the corner for Clinton have we heard about? We could prewrite the reviews of his memorial service speech tomorrow: the great orator, healer, blah, blah, blah.

  25. Think this is what Mark Penn was talking about?

    Ex-Clinton Strategist Mark Penn: Obama Needs Event ‘Similar’ to OKC to ‘Reconnect’ With Voters (Video)

    http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/ex-clinton-strategist-mark-penn-obama-needs-event-similar-to-okc-to-reconnect-with-voters-video/

  26. Buck the Wala says:

    Very interesting article:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

    • Buck

      Don’t you see anything pitiful about the very nature of the comments and conclusions made in the article? Clearly an attempt to create fear about what “might of happened” even thought it didn’t happen.

      The new facts are interesting but it doesn’t cause me any concern. In fact, the headline should have read:

      “Citizen displays greater control and judgment than trained Police.”

      On the more serious side, I am sure you are aware of problems with taking a persons word literally about what they did and what they were thinking in a situation like this. My experience is that as time goes by the “thinking” expands but at the time they couldn’t tell you what they were thinking. The brain is working faster than they are aware. I think that is why things seem to slow down when your in the middle of the event.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Actually I think it is important to look at ‘what might have happened’ alongside what did happen – it can be extremely constructive.

        Let’s not forget how many here on SUFA were predisposed to immediately clamor about how essential it is for everyone to have guns so that us law-abiding gun-carrying citizens can save the day when such an incident as this occurs.

        • Buck

          Yes it is important but it is not the conclusion. What happens is the conclusion.

          And perhaps my headline is so far fetched. From another article:

          “In a related article titled, “Are We a Nation of Cowards’?” in the November 15, 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine, George Will reported that police are more than 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent person by mistake.”

          In the same article it noted that civilians shoot and kill twice as many criminals each year than police (years of the study).

          I have no problem with folks carrying guns who want. I live in states where guns are everywhere, except at school. As to whether it will allow someone to save the day, that totally depends on the circumstances. Having the gun does not guarantee prevention. But it sure increases the chances.

          Now tell me, what exactly did you get from the “what might of happened” that was “constructive”?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I have no problem with people carrying guns either — so long as there are gun restrictions in place to limit who can carry them and where they can carry them.

            Out of curiousity, do you believe people should be allowed to carry guns in school? If so, any limits to that?

            • Buck

              I think hunting aged kids should be allowed to have rifles or shotguns in their vehicle if they are secured and out of site. In trunks, behind seats. Now this rule would make sense in areas where H.S. kids hunt before and after school. Probably not in NY City. So in this case there needs to be some reasonable flexibility instead of the current absolute no tolerance. Which really means the Administrators don’t have to think.

              Teachers and administrators should be allowed to have concealed weapons in schools. Background, mental evaluations and training required in this case.

              Honestly, I don’t know gun laws well enough but I think the States could in fact implement these types of rules under current laws.

              Seems to me the only Federal requirement is the background checks, waiting periods and registration.

              And YES, I am opposed to registration, but they know who you are anyway from the background check.

              • JAC posts: “Seems to me the only Federal requirement is the background checks, waiting periods and registration.”

                No sir, not any longer. This rule has been gone for some time. It is and should be a state issue and remain there. I just bought two new handguns….380 Sig and a .380 PPK….it took about three minutes for them to check that I have no criminal background. No waiting period, no registration…paid cash so there is no charge card record. Bought 500 rounds of ammo for each of them. I am licensed to carry and I am nowhere unarmed EXCEPT in Federal buildings. I do not frequent bars but you cannot carry a concealed handgun into one. Shotgun, yes. Rifle..yes…unless a sign is posted saying NO firearms. YOu can carry a shotgun in a rack anywhere in Texas EXCEPT on public school property. YOu can carry a hunting rifle anywhere in Texas except on school property. AND….you can carry a six shooter in a holster on your hip wherever you wish to go….but the nomenclature of the six shooter is clearly defined.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Ahh but high school students used to be able to carry weapons to school. Back in the day, if NY City High School kids belonged to the rifle club, they were issued a rifle, took it home, kept it, cleaned it and brought it to matches on the subway. But, alas, that was in the days before FEAR and “we are going to protect everyone from everything”. There are no more rifle teams in City High Schools, in High Schools in general and damn few in colleges and universities across the country.

                Too bad too, a perfect sport for boys and girls to compete on an equal basis and satisfy Title IX, but then again it would be “incorrect” and seen as encouraging violence.

          • Evening JAC!

            Snows a flying, should have close to 12-18 inches on the ground by Thursday.

            😆 😆 😆 Still!

            Peace!

        • Buck,

          I agree it was a good article. While it was easy to pick out the authors anti-gun stance, he was not inflammatory or disrespectful. His statements are true, that something bad could have happened. Now, let me help explian why his theories are less likely than he may think. I would rather have a citizen gun carrier in that situation than a cop any day, because based on my own experiences, those that carry have no illusions of being a hero, and hope and pray they never need to even draw it much less shoot it at another person. The young mans actions were consistant with a chaotic situation, he, because of his upbringing, had to be sure, add to the fact that no guns were pointed at him and noone was shooting at the time, he did not need to pull his gun. These are consistant actions of a person who has knowledge of guns throughout his life. His actions were subconscience based on a lifetime of training, and worked very well, very well indeed, and he should be commended for his use of discretion under those circumstances.

          Nothing against cops, but they are far more likely to shoot an innocent than an armed citizen. Before you ask what me experience is, I was a weapons instructor for the USAF for 12 years, I taught target identification and aquisition to USAF LE. Our training was sophisticated, with exercises in all types of chaotic circumstances. Civilian cops have nothing on the training the military gets.

          As a side note, most people carry concealed where I live, we have no crime in these parts, other than four legged fury critters.

          • Consequences are different.

            A civilian shooting a person must show they were in fear of their(or another’s)life(being lost).

            A police officer must show they followed procedure.
            Ex.
            http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/05/ex-transit-officer-gets-year-prison-sentence-bay-area-station-shooting/

            Imagine what the sentence would be for a civilian?

            • Again, that depends upon the state. In Texas, we can use a weapon to stop any crime being committed. And before you anti gun types chime in….running stop signs and red lights are not crimes. Robberies are stopped all the time here…there are stories abound of rapes being stopped by armed citizens, burglars being shot by armed neighbors, car jackings being stopped by citizens….etc.

              • D13, Do you mean like this????

                A TRUE STORY FROM…

                “THE HOUSTON HERALD NEWSPAPER”
                IN HOUSTON, TEXAS MARCH 5th, 2009

                Last Thursday Night Around Midnight,
                A Woman From Houston, Texas Was Arrested,
                Jailed, And Charged With Manslaughter
                For Shooting A Man 6 Times In The Back
                As He Was Running Away With Her Purse.

                The Following Monday Morning,
                The Woman Was Called In Front Of The
                Arraignment Judge, Sworn In,
                And Asked To Explain Her Actions.

                The Woman Replied,
                “I Was Standing At The Corner Bus Stop
                For About 15 Minutes, Waiting For The
                Bus To Take Me Home After Work.
                I Am A Waitress At A Local Cafe…

                I Was There Alone,
                So I Had My Right Hand On My Pistol,
                That Was In My Purse, That Was Hung
                Over My Left Shoulder.

                All Of A Sudden I Was Being
                Spun Around Hard To My Left.
                As I Caught My Balance, I Saw A Man
                Running Away From Me With My Purse.

                I Looked Down At My Right Hand And I Saw
                That My Fingers Were Wrapped Tightly
                Around My Pistol.

                The Next Thing I Remember Is Saying Out Loud,
                ” No Way Punk! Your Not Stealing My
                Pay Check And Tips.”

                I Raised My Right Hand, Pointed My Pistol
                At The Man Running Away From Me With My Purse,
                And Squeezed The Trigger Of My Pistol 6 Times!

                When Asked By The Arraignment Judge,
                “Why Did You Shoot The Man 6 Times?

                The Woman Replied Under Oath,
                “Because, When I Pulled The Trigger Of

                My Pistol The 7th Time, It Only Went Click.”

                The Woman Was Acquitted Of All Charges.
                And She Was Back At Work,
                At The Cafe, The Next Day!

                Only in Texas!

  27. Saw him on the news yesterday. 24 yrs old! Used quick thinking and made the right decision. Good job! Good American.!

    • Drat..obviously meant for JAC and Buck… I’m having a V moment 🙂

      • Hey, watch it! Hee Hee-Just kidding-Glad nothing was wrong-see you guys tomorrow. 🙂

        • Had to come back and tell you what my husband just said-I thought it was funny. I told him about your V moment and he said-“They have a senior moment that is named after you-that’s really bad sweetie.” 🙂 I made excuses but he just laughed at me. 🙂

          • Funny! See now you’ll never live it down on SUFA or at home. 🙂

            ALERT! My broom will not start this morning. Please no one help me. Thanks! 🙂

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Anita – I thought he mentioned he was more “lucky”? Guess that doesn’t jive with the right-wing narrative.

      • Ray

        It jives perfectly. If you react in a way that saves you from getting hit by a car you tell your friends you got “lucky”.

        But was it truly just luck? No way Jose’

  28. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I never thought I would see the day the State of Maine would join into opposing Obamacare

    http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/attorney-general-looks-to-join-list-opposing-federal-health-care-law_2011-01-11.html

    But after the Nov. election everything has changed here. Even a bill abolishing LURC. The Land Use Regulatory Commission in charge of development in Unorganized Townships, it is a Red Tape nightmare which has kept half of Maine almost off limits to development for quite some time. One developer near Moosehead Lake has reportedly already paid $25 million dollars just in an effort to obtain a permit. Can’t wait to see what else can be abolished here. Slash/Cut/eliminate, Yippee!

    This is a State ranked last in the country for doing business in. Too much taxes and extreme regulations just choking us, hopefully much can be repealed.

  29. Any bets on whether or not the infamous Arizona Sheriff gets re-elected?

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I bet a gallon of tax free Cider that he will be out next time.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        I still would like to know if it has been confirmed or not that this Sheriff was aware of the shooters probable mental problems before the shootings.

    • Well see above. The One called him and thanked him for doing a good job!

  30. Gabby Presents an Opportunity

    First, I would like to give credit to President Obama for his moment of silence, and not using it to push any agenda. I hope when he speaks in Arizona today, he continues that practice, and allows respectful morning without using this as an opportunity. I have no issue with him speaking his mind on how he views guns and violence, but the when and how is important. Respectfully Mr. President, after the funeral.

    And what do we think of how Bill and George acted after a similar tragedy?
    (I cherry picked Clinton mainly because of the length of their speeches)

    President George W. Bush

    Our nation is shocked and saddened by the news of the shootings at Virginia Tech today. The exact total has not yet been confirmed, but it appears that more than 30 people were killed and many more were wounded.

    I’ve spoken with Governor Tim Kaine and Virginia Tech President Charles Steger. I told them that Laura and I and many across our nation are praying for the victims and their families and all the members of the university community who have been devastated by this terrible tragedy. I told them that my administration would do everything possible to assist with the investigation, and that I pledged that we would stand ready to help local law enforcement and the local community in any way we can during this time of sorrow.

    President George W. Bush delivers a statement Monday, April 16, 2007, regarding the shooting deaths of more than 30 Virginia Tech students. “Today, our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech,” said the President. “We hold the victims in our hearts, we lift them up in our prayers, and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today.” White House photo by Eric Draper Schools should be places of safety and sanctuary and learning. When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community.

    Today, our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech. We hold the victims in our hearts, we lift them up in our prayers, and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/apr/27/usgunviolence.usa4

    Hillary Clinton

    Today, we will hear about further steps that we hope all of us are willing to take to make our schools and communities places in which all citizens can live in safety, free from violence and fear. In a few minutes, the people of Littleton, Denver and, indeed, all of Colorado will be stopping whatever they do for a moment of silence on behalf of those who lost their lives. I think it would be appropriate, here in the White House, that we join them; and that we not only use that moment of silence to remember the victims of this tragedy and the perpetrators, but that we think about all of the other children in America who tell us often that they’re scared – they’re scared to go outside, they’re scared because they know people who bring guns to school, they’re scared because of what they see happening around them. Our first obligation is to try to make our children free from that kind of fear.

    So if we could just take a moment in solidarity with the people not only in Colorado who have suffered this loss, but people throughout our country, on behalf of our children.

    (A moment of silence is observed.) Thank you.

    Bill Clinton

    And what’s the real problem here? The problem is, we have another culture in our country, that I think has gotten confused about its objectives. We have a huge hunting and sport shooting culture in America, and unlike many of you, I grew up in it. I was 12 years old the first time I took a .22 and shot it at a can on a fencepost in the country. I know about this.

    We always talk about the NRA – the NRA has been powerful not only because they have a lot of money, but because they can influence people who vote. And in that culture, people believe everybody should be personally responsible for their actions; if you just punish people who do wrong more harshly, fewer people will do wrong; and everybody tells me I’ve got a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, so don’t fool with me; and every reasonable restriction is just the camel’s nose in the tent, and pretty soon they’ll come after my shotgun, and I’ll miss the next duck hunting season.

    And we smile about that, but there are some people who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the Brady Bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban, and they did it in areas where people could be frightened. And the voters had not had enough time, which they did have within two more years, to see that nobody was going to take their gun away.

    So we have more than one cultural problem here.

    • I’m not sure the event that triggered this speech, but it sure fits the moment.

      President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @LOI – stay tuned – word is the Obama speech today…..will be anything but short and to the point. I am prepared to cringe.

  31. Off topic.

    Democrats in the Illinois Legislature on Wednesday approved a 66 percent income-tax increase in a desperate and politically risky effort to end the state’s crippling budget crisis.

    It will be coupled with strict 2 percent limits on spending growth. If officials violate those limits, the tax increase will automatically be canceled.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/12/ill-lawmakers-pass-percent-income-tax-increase/

    Let me get this right, they steal more money and allow for higher government spending at the same time. And the people will meakly accept this. Just the beginning folks!

    • Chris Christie said this morning that it will never go over well with the residents and the newly elected governors of Wisconsin , Minnesota, and Ohio will gladly accept the fleeing Illinois residents. I hope they do flee.

  32. Buck the Wala

    From last night your response to Anita and Me:

    Buck the Wala said
    January 12, 2011 at 8:18 am

    Once again – and for the last time – no one here on SUFA is advocating for, or in support of, restrictions on speech.

    All we on the left are arguing for is exactly what you on the right keep asking for to begin with – personal responsibility!

    Here is what you seem to not realize, or wish to ignore. When large groups of people start screaming about “personal responsibility” for certain types of speech, especially when it involves linking that speech to a murder, you are in fact calling for restrictions on speech. Perhaps it doesn’t involve Govt intervention but suppression of speech is the inevitable effect.

    Need proof? Just look to the speech that is now castigated, condemned and in some cases criminalized. We joke about Political Correct but it really isn’t funny. It is an attack on speech at the surface but an assault on free thought at its core.

    The cacophony surrounding this event is nothing more than an attempt to further confirm the bias on the left, about the crazy right wingers, and to possibly muzzle or devalue those they are attacking.

    You have a valid point that people who have a larger voice should think more about what they say. They have a “responsibility” to themselves and to those they are trying to reach. Nothing more.

    As for some of the other comments you made, what do you think the effect on a young black man in the ghetto might be regarding his attitude towards an elected official if he hears every day that that man is really a racist SOB. You don’t think if he were mentally challenged he might act out if given a chance?

    You see there really is no distinction between calling someone racist or homophobe and un-American. The impact is in the ears of the recipient, and not based on your opinion or mine. Need proof?

    Look at the difference in what you hear Beck saying and what I hear him saying. You can’t separate his “show” from his “message”. Why? I expect it is because he uses words that YOU find greatly offensive while I find them truthful or at least benign. The left assumes that Beck is brain washing the right. So everything he says confirms this “story” which is perpetrated by the “organizers” behind the curtain.

    And yes, there are absolutely organizers behind the curtain. Both sides have them and are expert at using them.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @JAC – OR – is there a chance there is no difference at all between the show and the message?

      So let’s take your last statement shall we?

      Can I assume you mean to say that there are organizers behind Beck’s show? Maybe Beck himself.

      So then how do we distinguish his show from his message?

      How do we know when we are supposed to slap our knees and guffaw “that there is a good one Beck! – killin’ Michael Moore, hardy-har-har-har!” and then turn heel and calm down and realize Beck’s message is a message of peace and love and brotherhood and……..well you get the picture.

      In applying the same methodology, how do then view a Keith Olbermann or Ed Schultz? Maybe, just maybe then all their pontificating is really just “show” and there is an underlying message that is a message of peace and love and brotherhood and………well you get the picture.

      But alas JAC – I don’t see Ed or Keith that way – they simply used twisted logic and pejorative terms like “Psycho-talk” and “Worst Person’s in the World”. Sometimes they have points – but if you’re not that far to the left its like trying to eat a Hershey’s Kiss covered in 10lbs of dogshit.

      But alas JAC – even folks like Lakoff and Chomsky will recognize to varying degrees that the right is far more successful at using linguistics and symbolism and transformational grammar and mind mapping to not only “show” (pun absolutely intended) their points but get you to internalize them – whether you realize it or not. Its why “end of life choices” becomes DEATH PANELS or health care reform becomes OBAMACARE. Its why Beck uses a chalkboard so often. If you ever used mind mapping in an educational setting you’ll understand what I mean. Its why we create process maps in business.

      So maybe at the end of the day it is just Beck being a showman. That gosh-darn silly ol’ prankster Beck – dadgummit Glenn – I durn near peed myself when you said we should kill Michael Moore. But I knew you was joshin’ us. Next time I see that fat boy from michigan I’ll give him a big ol’ bear hug and tell him he needs more god and Glenn Beck in his life.

      • Ray

        You have misunderstood my comments. Looking back it is probably my fault for using “separate show from message”.

        I am not saying you should “separate” them as if the show and the message were two different things. I am trying to point out, that for the PARTICULAR example that was given you have to see the “show” as I am calling it, in the context of the entire message.

        This particular monologue was typical Beck theatrics and style. It portrayed him as having this serious conflict within himself about wanting to strangle Moore and his look to Jesus for guidance. In the end, he settles on the non-violent solution.

        To me this, and other routines he has done, were like listening to a play on radio. Macbeth or Merchant from Venice perhaps.

        There are times when his “play” does not work so well. I myself have cringed. But if you listen to his entire show he will usually catch himself if he thinks he failed or the wrong message left standing.

        I don’t agree with Lakoff and Chomsky that the “right” is more adept at using words to internalize some political view point. They do have a serious political bias themselves that seems to affect their conclusions. Unless of course they are lumping progressives on the “right” just as I lump conservatives on the “left”. Need proof? I give you the American perception of Social Security and now the Medicare/Medicaid programs. Just look at the names of these programs themselves and then think about how most people view the programs.

        How about the view that we need to use our military to protect Democracy around the world and protect our National Interest? These were “P” Progressive concepts, not “C” Conservative in their origin.

        The biggest point you misunderstood was my comment about the controllers behind the curtain. I was not talking about the talking heads themselves or their shows. I was talking about the general manipulation via medium of all kinds, that is used to direct our reactions to the messages presented. In fact, the talking heads often pick up on this stuff and start repeating it because they think it fits their “target audience”.

        Thus my comment that perhaps the crazies drive the pundits.

        I also don’t want you to think that I am defending Beck in a wholesale manner. As I said, he has taken a tangent recently I don’t care for at all. And he, like all talking heads, is prone to stretching the truth or outright making errors. And as with all, as their popularity builds they seem to have greater difficulty admitting mistakes or apologizing.

        But I truly believe that the Left has organized an attack on him that is irrational, “for the most part”. I think it is because he posed an unusual, new and real threat to the establishment. If you go back you will find the “conservatives” like Limbaugh were attacking him at the same time.

        I agree with your assessment of the other two gentlemen. I have at times been able to pick out useful information or points but it is hard to get past the arrogance and anger.

        I take all of them at their word, by the way. I do not think they are just “putting on a show” for the money. I think they all believe what they say and feel some commitment to their audience. Well, Olbermann I am not sure about. Can’t get past the I am a sports guy and POOF now I am a political guy. Sorry, just a personal problem of my own.

        And they ALL need to be watched closely and taken with a large grain of salt.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          JAC – ever read Lakoff?

          • Ray

            Yes I have read “some” stuff.

            I think it was after you or maybe it was Chris that referenced him.

            What in particular do you have in mind. Oh dear, bad use of words. What would you like me to look up.

          • Ray

            Did I address the confusion over “show” vs. “message” on Beck?

            Not asking you to like the guy, just want to make sure you understand what I am trying to say.

            I do get a little fuzzy at times in my explanations. I never was good with vocabulary and have no clue what proper grammar is, so I tend to use the words I know in structure I understand. Sometimes the message is not clear because of that.

  33. Buck and Anita

    Solution to hate speech and insults by politicians and talking heads……………………..

    Legalize dueling.

    🙂

  34. Good Morning- How about a little break down. 🙂

    I think we all agree that the rhetoric has gotten too nasty, vitriolic, and LOUD. That there are too many personal attacks. That there are too many outright lies and huge exaggerations on both sides of the isle, which do nothing but make us mad and hurt communication. So I think most would agree in principal that the rhetoric should be toned down. I think most, if not all would agree that words have power and can lead to anger which can lead to violence. Personally, I don’t believe it can lead to the type of violence that occurred this week-I have already stated why I think this. Some I think agree with me on this-some don’t.

    Now in my opinion the problem as JAC stated last night(great post by the way ! )is that any talk of toning things down leads to talk of censorship and speech being declared hate speech. This is partly because we don’t agree on what is and isn’t harmful rhetoric. But mostly the reason a lot of us believe this is the words and acts by members of congress. They are saying they want to pass new laws to do just these things. So the discussions continue, even though most/all on the left on this blog say they do not support any free speech censorship. It seems that in general and in principal we all agree.

    So the only problem I see is that some members of the democratic party don’t agree with us.

    • V.H.

      My compliments on your “break down”.

      And thank you for the kind words.

      🙂

      P.S. I left a little jewel on USW’s new Wed Open Mic I think you will enjoy.

      • You are welcome JAC-You have that thing, that makes a writer good. You make me fell like you took my jumbled up, not quite concrete thoughts and put them together in a logical, comprehensible, consolidated order. I wonder how many people read your words and think-yea that’s what I was trying to say or grasp in my mixed up thought patterns.

        Was a wonderful speech by Ms. Sara P.-that woman may manage to get my vote before it’s all said and done. 🙂

        • V.H.

          If she could prove to me capable of that type of thought on the fly, I might reconsider myself. But alas, in the end she is just another politician. I so hope we can find another “representative”, but only time will tell.

        • Agree! I was going to post ‘took the words right out of my mouth’ to JACs post but decided against it. Great post JAC.

  35. Buck the Wala

    House cleaning on the Equal Protection discussion.

    You expressed disgust for Scalia’s interpretation but I want you to notice that your argument relied on attacking his “methodology” rather than the conclusion itself. In short, you tried to change the argument.

    I agree that Scalia seems to violate his own stated principles in deciphering “meaning” at times. But that fact does not negate the fact that it was not the intent for this provision to extend the rights and protections claimed today, to women, homosexuals or other groups.

    It it were, then we would not have had to pass another amendment years later addressing women’s right to vote.

    I also think what is missing here is that the provision simply holds states to the same standard as the Federal with regard to certain restrictions included elsewhere.

    So the “modern” version of the equal protection rests on the “modern” interpretation of the other provisions themselves. And this leads us full circle back to “living document” theory vs. “interpretation”.

    But the FACT remains that the equal protection amendment was not intended to provide the protections that everyone is crying foul about.

    I just had an idea regarding SCOTUS imposing its view of “modern social norms” in the “interpretation” process.

    If we allowed an option for Congress to “require reconsideration” of an opinion of the Court that included a statement as to Congress’ view on what was “acceptable” then there would be a chance for the “People” to speak on the matter. If a 2/3 majority were required then the finding could be binding on the court.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Scalia’s statement itself is ridiculous and disgusting. I stand by that, 100%.

      What makes it even more ridiculous and disgusting is how easily Scalia sidestepped his own professed methodology for constitutional interpretation to reach this conclusion. This is something expected of Thomas, not Scalia who, despite my disagreement with him on constitutional theory and interpretation, I have always respected for his consistency and intelligence.

      • Buck

        You have STILL NOT presented a rational argument as to why his conclusion is WRONG.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          His conclusion is wrong because the text of the Amendment is clear on its face.

          From the 14th Amendment: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

          You criticize me for interpreting the Constitution, yet you yourself continue to interpret a clear and unambiguous statement.

          • Buck

            I DO NOT criticize you for interpreting the constitution.

            I criticize the concept of “living document” and especially the notion that the Framers “intended” the meaning of the document to be revised via rulings by the Supreme Court to reflect “modern values”.

            I have not interpreted the 14th to overturn plain language. I am simply saying it is quite obvious that it was not the “intent” of those who wrote and passed this amendment that it would provide the types of protections that are being claimed today.

            I would like to point out, however, that the provision requires equal application of the law, it DOES NOT require that the laws treat everyone equally.

            If it did you could kiss the Welfare programs and Affirmative Action programs goodbye, along with the Progressive Income Tax.

            By the way, if you go back you will find where I posted on SUFA that I felt the ban on gay marriage violated this amendment and would be found Unconstitutional.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I agree. So how is it that you support Scalia’s statement? Or am I misreading your views on this?

              Arguing that the original intent was not to provide equality to women is very different from saying that the Constitution does not provide equality for women. By its plain text, yes, the Constitution most certainly provides equality for women.

              • Buck

                Where does the Constitution provide for equality for women?

                It provides for equal protection under the law.

                It doesn’t require laws that treat everyone equally in all aspects of their lives.

                I support the conclusion that the “intent” of the 14th was not to provide equality for women or anyone else. That was what I understood Scalia to be saying. That is all I have said from the beginning.

                If the Constitution provides for equality for women, then it must reside somewhere else.

                Now here is the big kicker. I think the Constitution did in fact provide for equality of everyone. But you see the “living document” followers undermined that when they changed the meaning of “General Welfare” as it was used in that period.

                The 14th was in response to State’s trying to undermine anti-slavery laws by passing other laws that violated the individual rights of blacks. That is the context and the “intent” of its passage.

                I said the gay marriage ban in a particular State was unconstitutional because Article IV requires all States to recognize the priveleges and immunities “in the several States”.

                Now I admit to not having researched the “original intent” or “context” of this Article. Except that I know a major concern was that citizens of one state could be arrested of fined in another state for acts that were legal in the State from which they came.

                So in what I understand the original intent to be, gay marriage in one state would have to be recognized by another. The second could ban gay marriage but would have to provide for full legal recognition of a gay marriage performed in another state. This would of course make the “legal/administrative” arguments for the “ban” moot.

                As I understand the Gay Marriage laws attempting to ban the practice they all direct that ONLY one form of marriage be legally recognized. They do not address those marriages from other states. Thus they violate Article IV.

%d bloggers like this: