Violence as a Political Tool

It is ironic that I was working on an article about my childhood recollections of growing up in Alabama with George C. Wallace as my Governor when this tragedy in Tucson took place. Seems like an appropriate time to discuss how we; collectively, as Americans, deal with such things.

I was born a couple of months after John Kennedy was assassinated and my parents kept me pretty insulated from Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy’s subsequent murders although I was old enough to see the emotional toll it took on them and other family members. The sixties and early seventies were a transformational time. Useless war, assassinations as a means of gaining power, political malfeasance, etc. The country was evolving.

Earthrise

Thank God for Apollo 11. That was the best thing to come from the sixties. It was a moment of possibility, not defiance. It brought Walter Cronkite to tears, which was pretty tough to do considering the atrocities of the Vietnam War he had to cover. It was a hopeful moment, not one of remorse. My first grade class ground to a halt to watch Neil Armstrong utter those famous words. And the picture of the Earth rising over the moon’s surface seemed to put our petty perspectives into place if only for a moment.

Governors Lurleen B. Wallace and George C. Wallace of Alabama

I do remember watching the attempted assasination of George Wallace in 1972. He was running for president at the time. It was assumed that the assailant thought that the idea of a President Wallace was a bad one.

George Wallace was a big political figure in the south. He served multiple terms, largely because his wife ran for and won the seat after he was term limited. He was re-elected after her. I should note that Lurleen B. Wallace was a pretty good politician herself who became Alabama’s first female Governor. George Wallace rose to fame as the Governor opposed to integration of the educational system. His symbolic stance on the steps of the University of Alabama to block the admittance of black students is an historic act of grandstanding. He knew it wouldn’t work but his constituency needed for him to try.

In 1972, Authur Bremer attempted to kill George Wallace during the Presidential campaign. Wallace was left paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair for the remainder of his life. As an elementary school student, I was shocked that my leader would come under attack (I had yet to form my present liberal perspective). This was an attack on me, my family, and my community.

As I grew older and went to college, I realized Wallace was misguided. The south was in its last phase of denial that all men (and women) are created equal.

The violence seemed to subside after that. Ironically, the assassinations seemed to elevate the victims into martyr status (except for Wallace, perhaps). Doctor King’s message reverberated loudly and clearly. The Kennedy message would permeate politics for almost 50 years until Patrick Kennedy steps down this year.

So why the violence? Nate sources a good article from the Atlantic by James Fellows. What’s the motive behind the violence? Is it political? Is it random?

I tried to get to the answer about this when I was in undergraduate school. Specifically, I wanted to know if Sirhan Sirhan had a reason to assassinate Bobby Kennedy. Turns out, nobody really knows. Same for other shootings. John Hinkley’s attempt on Ronald Reagan’s life has to do with a fixation on Jodie Foster. Mark David Chapman appears to have liked the Beatles, just not John Lennon. President McKinley was shot by a disgruntled Polish worker (okay, that may have been politically motivated). The list is extensive. Jonestown, Waco, and now Tucson.

Just what is the motivation behind these killings?

Well, I propose that there is a connection between the rise of these killings and the proliferation of media. I’m not alone, either. After the attack on Rep Giffords, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik responded to the question of senseless violence,

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” he said. “And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

I think he’s right. Violence is nothing new. Mass violence is. High school massacres are a recent trend. Columbine, Thurston, Virginia Tech; they all share a commonality. Infamy. If you can’t achieve fame, then infamy will do. Go out in a blaze of glory trumpeted by the media.

This of course is connected to our 24/7 media world. We have more media outlets available than ever. I did a back of the envelope calculation of television shows available to the public. Many of them are crime dramas. I recall back in the sixties and seventies when murder was an anomaly on TV shows. Remember Mannix? Aside from being the first Private eye to have a car phone, he also had an African American assistant. Pretty big in those days. But a murder was a fairly exclusive event. Nowadays, you have to have serial killings for ratings. In my back of the envelope calculation, just by looking at the shows presented on cable these days, the ratio of murders/killings on TV is four times the national average.

But let’s go further. Video games have anesthetized us from feeling any empathy with the victims. In video games we kill things with impunity in our fantasies. We’re further justified in doing so because the game says we are the good guys and suffer no consequences. In most cases, we are rewarded. Bonus points. On to the next level. Kill more bad guys (those who disagree with us). This was eerily bourn out in the Wikileaks ‘Apache’ video of the military attack in Iraq. [Warning: this is a disturbing video]

So, we get 24/7 coverage and if we aren’t good looking enough for fame, just kill a bunch of people we don’t agree with. Hey, it works for Muslim extremists, right? How about midwestern Jesus freaks? Abortion clinic bombers?

Fanaticism in any form is wrong. Violence is no solution for democracy. Violence is totalitarianism. It is a beat down of the will of the majority and we should not stand for that. At the same time, free speech comes with a modicum of responsibility. I understand the anger on the right for the change that is occurring in our society but at the same time, I am alarmed by the rhetoric of violence that is being used. Putting crosshairs on districts that are ‘targeted’ for elimination. Invoking ‘second amendment remedies’ when you are losing a political battle, using fighting words like ‘reload’. Most sane people will see this as just pep rally rhetoric. But some; maybe not-so-sane people, those who feel abandoned or overlooked by society may see it as a call to arms.

Christina Green Born 9/11/2001 Killed January 8, 2011

Well, there is a price to pay for that mentality. Here she is. A nine year old along with the five other people with irreplacable lives taken by a young gunman with twisted beliefs. Look in her eyes and tell me her life was less important than his method of objecting to the status quo or his second amendment rights. Christina was killed by a confused youth who felt left out. Heck, that’s just being a teen-ager. I don’t pretend to know the motives of the person who gunned down nineteen people at the political rally in Tucson yesterday. And, in fact, no one may ever understand it because if history is any indicator, rationality has little to do with motive.

Here is my point. You are just as accountable with your choice of words in the public media as the gunman who chose to act upon them. With the pulpit comes accountability. Statistics indicates that there will be a person confused, deluded, or coerced into taking physical, violent action against an enemy they don’t understand. The consequences of what we say needs to be kept in consideration because what we say could ignite some to take actions other rational people would not. The pen may indeed be mightier than the sword, but it could be just as deadly as the bullet loaded into the chamber.

To add insult to injury the Westboro Baptist Church plans to protest the funerals of those killed in the attack. I’m for first amendment rights but, come on: really?

And as you might imagine, Keith Olbermann came to work on Saturday and issued a special comment.

Update: Huffinton Post reporting that a woman snatched the second clip from the gunman allowing time for the two other guys to tackle him.


About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

262 Responses to Violence as a Political Tool

  1. Monotreme says:

    Well put, Mr. U. Nothing to add here.

  2. dcpetterson says:

    Keith Olbermann’s special comment was perfect. The man is class personified. A more caring and honest and gentle commentator you’d be hard pressed to find.

    I was seven when JFK was shot, and I was twelve when MLK and RFK died. I was politically aware from a young age, and I was already active in RFK’s presidential campaign. His death changed my world.

    That politicians today throw around the rhetoric of political violence is absolutely criminal. That the media covers it and expands upon it — without immediately and loudly condemning it — is complicit in the criminality.

  3. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Well said.

    Turns out that Christina was also the granddaughter of former Phillies manager Dallas Green.

  4. Monotreme says:

    A beautiful tribute to a special little girl.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10green.html

  5. Monotreme says:

    @DC,

    Maybe it’s because we grew up around the same time. I was 9 (the same age as Christina Green) and I remember helping the Negro janitor at our school with some minor classroom cleanup (rolling up a poster, as I recall) in April 1968. He had tears in his eyes, worried that the death of Rev. Martin Luther King would cause political rhetoric and violence to spin out of control and eliminate the gains made in civil rights.

    That made a deep and lasting impression on me.

  6. Monotreme says:

    Tweeted from David Frum’s account:

    @davidfrum
    The talk did not cause the crime. But the crime should lead to reflection on the talk. http://www.frumforum.com/can-we-tone-down-the-political-rhetoric

  7. Monotreme says:

    Also note this article by Vaughan Bell.

    Mental illness ≠ violence.

    Mental illness does, however, predispose some individuals to act out in a violent way when behavioral triggers are present. So let’s tone down the behavioral triggers.

    From Twitter:
    @vaughanbell
    The Arizona shooting and mental illness as an explanation for violence. My Slate article: http://is.gd/kpoy9

  8. shiloh says:

    Since Giffords is married to an astronaut who currently has a twin brother astronaut on the space shuttle ie the current commander of the International Space Station, Expedition 26 there will probably be a NASA connection to Obama’s State of the Union speech.

    Bottom line, this tragedy has taken the air out of the Rep balloon re: their current campaign of division/hate/fear/misinformation but, but, but “we” can only hope 😉 they recover quickly …

    >

    btw, the space program was nice, especially being from Ohio ~ Glenn/Armstrong etc. but to me the ’60s was all about sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll! baby! ~ if memory serves …

    solo estoy diciendo

    ok, the ’60s was about war, protest, racial tension, technology explosion and it spanned JFK to Nixon ie hope to fear ~ again, the yin and yang of Dems and Reps!

    Beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life on this planet …

    Live long and prosper …

    Plop Plop Fizz Fizz …

  9. Bart DePalma says:

    U:

    People rate responsible for their own actions, not mindless automons who think: “Sarah Palin posted a year ago that Democrats are targeted for defeat in an election – I must kill as many people as I can.” The suggestion is ridiculous on its face, as Howard Kurtz correctly notes:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-08/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-dont-blame-sarah-palin/

    Rather, progressives are once again reprehensibly attempting to exploit murder for political gain. From Politico today:

    One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did.

    Continue Reading
    “They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”

    Another Democratic strategist said the similarity is that Tucson and Oklahoma City both “take place in a climate of bitter and virulent rhetoric against the government and Democrats.”

    This Democrat said that the time had come to insist that Republicans stand up when, for example, a figure such as Fox News commentator Glenn Beck says something incendiary.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47294_Page2.html

    It takes an extraordinary amount of chutzpah for Dems to attempt to use this loathsome slander to attack conservatives for inspiring this murderer given that the shooter reportedly has leftist politics and listed the communist manifesto (not a Glen Beck or Sarah Palin book) among his favorite reads.

    If you have any sense of honor, you and the others here pushing this slander will reconsider.

  10. Mr. Universe says:

    Well, I would argue that anyone who comes to the conclusion that mass killing is a reasonable course of action is a teensy bit mentally unbalanced. But I’m not making a cause/correlation analysis either. Maybe it’s better to say that mentally unbalanced people are not pre-disposed to commit mass killings but mass killers are pre-disposed to be mentally unbalanced.

    Depends on your definition of mentally unbalanced as well.

  11. shiloh says:

    hmm, a chicken or egg argument as I would posit ever since Eve forced Adam to eat that damn apple, it’s been all downhill …

  12. shiloh says:

    Bartles, as always, take your inane palin er winger rationalizations/apologies and shove them where the sun don’t shine …

    TIA

  13. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Does ANYONE here believe that Bart knows ANYTHING about “honor”?

  14. Mr. Universe says:

    Yes, well, I’ve never read Mien Kampf as our shooter listed among his favourites. Perhaps if I did, I’d be compelled to t…

    You know what? Somebody else can give you the smackdown. I have other things to do.

  15. Bart DePalma says:

    shiloh/max:

    I apologize for assuming either of you have a sense of honor. You posts speak for themselves.

  16. GROG says:

    @Bart,

    The filth being spouted on leftwing cable TV and blogs makes it appear as if the far left has been waiting for a tragedy like this to happen so they could use it as a political oppurtunity on which to pounce. It’s absolutely appaling.

    For people who lecture and warn against partisan divide, I can’t remember a reaction to an event that has ever been more partisan, misrepresented and full of vitriol in my lifetime.

  17. Jean says:

    A senior Republican senator, speaking anonymously in order to freely discuss the tragedy, told POLITICO that the Giffords shooting should be taken as a “cautionary tale” by Republicans.

    “There is a need for some reflection here — what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.”

    The vast majority of tea party activists, this senator said, ought not be impugned.

    “They’re talking about things most mainstream Americans are talking about, like spending and debt,” the Republican said, before adding that politicians of all stripes need to emphasize in the coming days that “tone matters.”

    “And the Republican Party in particular needs to reinforce that,” the senator said.

    But as also been noted, let’s not lose sight of the context — in the 21st century, a Republican senator who wants to convey a basic observation about rhetorical excesses, has to do so anonymously. We’ve reached the point at which a GOP senator wants to say that “tone matters,” but can’t quite bring himself/herself to say so on the record. That, it seems to me, is about as significant as the sentiment itself.

  18. shiloh says:

    Bartles, I realized a couple years ago after a few days of your ad nauseam obsessive hate/fear/misinformation Obama posts that you were full of crap!

    The big question? What took me soooo long …

    take care, blessings

  19. shiloh says:

    and grog is still Bartles #1 groupie ~ all is well …

  20. Mr. Universe says:

    busboy makes some interesting observations. I’d like to respond with an unusual court case of late.

    An ex-boyfriend went online and posed as his ex-girlfriend soliciting a rape fantasy. Some other guy responded to the invitation and went to the girls apartment and did the deed. It was, in essence, a rape by proxy. Now who is guilty? The guy who committed the actual rape (under the assumption that resistance was part of the fantasy), or the guy who commissioned the act?

    By the same measure, if I incite violence through a media outlet, am I as responsible for an act of another person who responds to my encouragement?

    If that were the case, then all I need to do to rule the world is convince the gullible to do my bidding. I think it was Cromwell who said that an army that believes God is on their side is invincible.

  21. shortchain says:

    I’m not going to bother with either Bart or his dimwitted sidekick, GROG.

    What separates our country from Somalia, or Afghanistan, or Sudan, is the willingness of all of us to live within the limitations of a civil society. We would easily overrun the police, the national guard, and even the military, if even a large minority of us decided to act in a manner utterly outside the law.

    Assassination should be outside the pale. It should not be suggested, either in word or in image — and the Palin “bullseye” campaign poster should have meant that all the Palinites around here should have criticized that poster on sight. They didn’t, which makes their whining now simply more of their hypocrisy.

  22. shiloh says:

    then all I need to do to rule the world is convince the gullible to do my bidding.

    Coincidentally Bartles/Reps meme as his/their elitism shines thru daily in their hoity-toity wannabe kingdom!

  23. Monotreme says:

    Can anyone comment on the veracity of this tweet?

    @CalFireNews
    Clinton Era Federal assault weapons ban, prohibited magazines to hold more than 10 rounds, ban expired under Bush.

  24. Monotreme says:

    Bart,

    Dave Weigel already covered the “Democratic operative” quote better than I possibly could.

  25. GROG says:

    Monotreme,

    What makes anyone think this guy would of abided by any magazine restriction laws? People who are willing to shoot someone in the head at point blank range are usually not all that concerned with violating gun laws.

  26. Monotreme says:

    The criminal complaint against Loughner has been posted.

  27. Monotreme says:

    GROG,

    What makes you think it should be legal to manufacture and sell a magazine that holds 30 rounds?

  28. GROG says:

    shortchain said: I’m not going to bother with either Bart or his dimwitted sidekick, GROG.

    I didn’t expect you too, but you can’t ignore the fact that when this blog first reported the story it took Mr. U 17 to words to mention Sharon Angle, before any facts or sympathy about the tragedy were mentioned.

  29. Monotreme,

    Can anyone comment on the veracity of this tweet?

    The tweet is accurate, according to this.

  30. GROG says:

    Monotreme,

    Criminals are illegally manufacturing, selling, and using assault rifles and magazines all the time. Was your implication that if the ban didn’t expire under Bush, this tragedy would have never happened?

  31. Mr. Universe says:

    @GROG

    Truth doesen’t discriminate between 17 word or 1700 words. I can call BS at any time. I call BS.

  32. Mr. Universe says:

    Let me be clear. I hold Sharron Angle complicit in this tragedy. More than I hold Palin.

  33. Monotreme says:

    GROG,

    I am looking forward to my 120 mm mortar I ordered, since it’s covered under your Second Amendment. My Second Amendment excludes items (such as a 30-round magazine) that have no value whatsoever in personal protection or sport.

    It’s a question of utility. What is the purpose of a 30-round magazine, save to maim or kill a lot of people in a short period of time? At a 30% “hit rate”, as mentioned in the earlier thread, that means I hit 10 people by unloading my magazine with 30 trigger pulls in less than a minute.

    Explain to me the purpose in your world of a 30-round magazine. If you can’t, then let’s put it in the same category as small thermonuclear devices, ICBMs, and 120 mm mortars, all of which are not allowed to be manufactured for civilian use and all of which I am not allowed to own according to Federal law.

  34. shortchain says:

    Gosh, how alert to reality do you have to be to associate a violent armed attack on a Democratic representative with a prominent Republican candidate who called for armed insurrection?

    More alert that GROG, apparently. He’s groggy.

  35. drfunguy says:

    Grog
    Right wing commentators (and political candidates) have a two decade track record of calling for violent attacks on liberals, alleged liberals and federal agents in general.
    I posted on links recently (the last time you tried to allege that the leftwing commentators were just as bad – still waiting for a single example), but see Coulter, Liddy, O’Reilly, Angle ad nauseum. They make explicit threats agains particular individuals and institutions.
    These people have moral responsibility for the consequencies of their speech – the murder of a doctor while he sat in church for example. Angle’s words clearly have relevance to this horrible tragedy. So why shouldn’t she be called to task?

  36. Bart DePalma says:

    Monotreme says: Bart, Dave Weigel already covered the “Democratic operative” quote better than I possibly could. – @daveweigel This “one Democratic operative” isn’t very good at his job.

    In what way not very good at his job? By advocating the slander or being honest about the Dem malicious political intent in employing the slander?

  37. shortchain says:

    Monotreme,

    I’m a much more careful guy than you. I just want a few old TOW units. Much more selective (although still too much collateral damage for use in deer hunting, they could be useful for fishing, with a little modification, along with a fish-finder) — and yet I’m sure they’d be effective on people who get ahead of me on the freeway and drive under the speed limit.

    And I’ve wanted reactive armor for my sub-compact for years.

  38. Monotreme says:

    Bart, you would have to ask Dave Weigel that.

    For my part, I deplore such talk. I have in the past, I do so now, and I will continue to do so in the future. This moment, if it has a political dimension, is to be used to examine the effects of our political speech on vulnerable, mentally unstable individuals, not to score points off the “other side” which is what we’re all saying here, if you care to pay attention.

  39. drfunguy says:

    @Grog
    “I can’t remember a reaction to an event that has ever been more partisan, misrepresented and full of vitriol in my lifetime.”
    I guess you missed Falwell’s (or was it Robertson’s?) reponse the day following (or of) the 9/11 attacks?
    How about the partisan and vitriolic invocation of same to deride those opposing the unnecessary and unrelated invasion of Iraq?

  40. dcpetterson says:

    Barted:
    and listed the communist manifesto (not a Glen Beck or Sarah Palin book) among his favorite reads.

    Also Mein Kampf. Not exactly a leftist tract.

    You didn’t bother to mention that.

    Bart, do you honestly believe people are going to buy your blather and not call you on your omissions and falsehoods?

    Uhm, yes, you do. After all, it was you who said, “I know what’s best for you rabble.” You honestly think you’re better and smarter than everyone else. Which means you think your lies and omissions will go unquestioned.

  41. GROG says:

    shortchain said: Gosh, how alert to reality do you have to be to associate a violent armed attack on a Democratic representative with a prominent Republican candidate who called for armed insurrection?

    Please cite where Angle “called for” armed insurrection. I’ll be waiting for your post.

  42. GROG says:

    Mono,

    I never said a 30 round magazine should be legal. My point is that murdering criminals tend to break the law. They can get their hands on dangerous weapons regardless of the legality to own them.

  43. shiloh says:

    Bartles, are you (((whining))) again ?!?

    Oops! 😀 Bart is whining again as per usual ~ all is well …

  44. dcpetterson says:

    GROG thinks that since people will create and buy 30-round mags illegally anyway, it should be legal to manufacture and sell them.

    Since since people will create and buy heron and LSD and crystal meth illegally anyway, it should be legal to manufacture and sell it.

    Hell, according to this logic, people are going to break laws. Why bother to have any laws at all? Everything should be legal.

  45. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “…and listed the communist manifesto (not a Glen Beck or Sarah Palin book) among his favorite reads.

    DC: Also Mein Kampf. Not exactly a leftist tract. You didn’t bother to mention that.

    Actually, I did in a previous slap down of the inane proposition that the shooter was some sort of follower of libertarian Ron Paul.

    In reality, fascism and communism are variations on the same totalitarian theme, and are thus the antithesis of libertarianism and the Tea Party.

  46. Monotreme says:

    The legality of such devices is exactly the crux of the argument.

    I submit as a hypothesis that the reason that no 9 year old in the United States has been killed with a 120 mm mortar, TOW missile (thanks for that, SC), ICBM, small thermonuclear device, hand grenade, and the like, is that the Federal government tightly regulates such devices and they are not in general use.

    Disprove my hypothesis by reasoned argument and evidence.

  47. Todd Dugdale says:

    Grog wrote:
    What makes anyone think this guy would of abided by any magazine restriction laws?

    So we should make it as easy as possible for “this guy” to buy a gun legally?

    What boggles my mind is how conservatives can enthusiastically support something like marijuana prohibition (and pretend that it actually prevents anyone from obtaining it), and simultaneously dismiss gun restrictions because criminals will ignore the law.

    Sure, marijuana isn’t in the Constitution and guns are. But that was because it was obvious at the time of the Constitution’s signing that hemp was essential to the economy and the military (to make sails and paper). The Constitution itself was printed on hemp, but they didn’t include a “hemp amendment”. Nor a “milk amendment”, a “bread amendment”, or a “steel amendment”, for that matter. Even the 18th Amendment didn’t ban corn (to make bourbon) or hops (to brew beer).

    You want “original intent”? Fine, then we should allow everyone who isn’t a convicted felon to own all of the flintlock muskets they want. That technology was good enough to fight the Civil War with, wasn’t it? It beat the British, the French, the Mexicans, and the Indians (sorry, filistro).

  48. shiloh says:

    grog, you are one frickin’ lazy troll, eh as you are free to google angle+armed insurrection/armed revolt at any time …

    take care, blessings

    apologies to lazy winger trolls

  49. GROG says:

    DC Pettered: GROG thinks that since people will create and buy 30-round mags illegally anyway, it should be legal to manufacture and sell them.

    C’mon DC. Really? I know you’re smarter than this. You know that’s not what I said.

    There was the implication that if the 30 round magazine ban didn’t end under Bush, this shooting would haven’t taken place. I said it didn’t make a damn bit of difference if the ban ended. The nutjob is capable of murder. He’s also capable of breaking a gun ban law.

  50. Mr. Universe says:

    GROG asked;

    Please cite where Angle “called for” armed insurrection. I’ll be waiting for your post.

    I’m sorry. What part of second amendment remedies are you missing? I can read the Constitution here on the site if you want. But the second amendment is pretty clear. Have you read your Constitution lately?

  51. Monotreme says:

    @GROG,

    I’m capable of constructing a fission bomb. I’ve got plans, and everything. What’s your point?

  52. drfunguy says:

    “Please cite where Angle “called for” armed insurrection. I’ll be waiting for your post.”
    This was on the previous thread (from Max, I think). I guess you missed it.

    Sharron Angle: You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
    I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.
    Larson: If it continues to do the things it’s doing, I think she’s leaving open that possibility,” And I think the founders believed that the public should be able to do that when the government becomes out of control. It just matters what you define as going too far.”

    On 30 May in interview with Reno Gazette-Journal:
    “The nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways. That’s why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?”

  53. shortchain says:

    GROG,

    So now, when it suits your position, you are going to require everybody else to produce, word for word, a phrase that you specify, while, above, you were interpreting everything from everybody else in the loosest manner imaginable?

    This is know as “moving the goalposts” and is your favorite form of hypocrisy — and I’d play more, but I’m busy, and will now ignore you.

    Bart,

    Some lawyer told me that “Slander” is defamation in a transient, non-published manner. What you mean is, as I’ve had it explained to me, “libel” — because everything on the internets are, by definition, published.

  54. shiloh says:

    Bartles again do you have reading comprehension deficit !!! as there was no proposition that Loughner was a follower of Ron Paul.

    Damn, you’re an idiot!

  55. Todd Dugdale says:

    Per Fox News, Fidel Castro has condemned the Tucson shootings. That means that, even if Loughner is proven to be a leftist, he isn’t a “true” leftist, right?

    Show me where Fidel Castro has called for the assassination of federal judges, elected Representatives, or 9 year-old girls.

    I’m waiting….

  56. shiloh says:

    My post from (9) hours ago re: Ron Paul.

    shiloh says:
    January 9, 2011 at 08:41

    Barted ~ I was unaware that Ron Paul was a totalitarian whose politics were guided by the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.

    Bartles, CR’s post re: Paul was a stand alone comment ~ He had some commonalities with Ron Paul crackpots. So yea, the only crackpot er deflecting fool in this thread, as always, is yourself. Bart did you know that reading comprehension is still a major problem in America …
    ~~~~~

    Repeating ~ Damn Bart, you’re an idiot!

  57. dcpetterson says:

    Bart, GROG, you are free to join us in condemning both the violence at Tuscon (which you have done) and the vile rhetoric which encourages and promotes such violence (which you haven’t done).

  58. dcpetterson says:

    Bart’s playing the victim card? Who could have predicted that?

  59. shiloh says:

    Correction (6) hrs ago and one for the road …

    Damn Bart, you’re an idiot!

  60. shiloh says:

    Bart’s playing the victim card? Who could have predicted that?

    palin and her boytoy Bartles ~ (2) peas in a pod …

  61. GROG says:

    drfunguy:

    No reasonable person can possibly conclude that she was “calling for ” armed insurrection from those quotes above. In fact, she was warning against it.

    She said “I hope that’s not where we’re going.” How do you conclude from that that she was “calling for ” armed insurrection? It’s ridiculous.

  62. Todd Dugdale says:

    Shiloh wrote:
    there was no proposition that Loughner was a follower of Ron Paul.

    No, but I speculated that Loughner was a part of the “sovereign citizen” movement, which is further to the Right fringe than Paul ever was.

    I still believe that the (admittedly) scant evidence there is points to Loughner being involved in the sovereign movement. But the Right can just as easily re-define itself as they did when McVeigh and the “militia” movement became a liability. Who really thought of the “militia” movement and the “Montana Freemen” as leftists?
    Instead, the Right re-defined them as “crazies”, though they self-identified with the Right – the ultimate example of “not conservative enough”. It’s hard to imagine, though, that if McVeigh had been well-received, that the Right would have disowned him.

    Pointing out this phenomenon is what led to me being characterised as a “partisan asswipe”, though. I will, however, go out on a limb and say that this Tucson shooting has been a PR disaster for the Right, no matter what subsequent investigation into Loughner’s affiliation reveals.

  63. shiloh says:

    I will, however, go out on a limb and say that this Tucson shooting has been a PR disaster for the Right, no matter what subsequent investigation into Loughner’s affiliation reveals.
    ~~~~~

    Indeed! and Bart’s still an idiot regardless lol

  64. Mule Rider says:

    Whether it be the tragedy in Tucson or the comments that litter this blog, I’m increasingly and thoroughly convinced that there is no United States of America anymore. We’re just one big Divided States of America.

    And there will be no need for secession. This country will self-destruct and break apart on its own.

  65. Monotreme says:

    Mafia Hit Man: “So, you have two children, what, a six year old girl and a nine year old boy? They both attend XYZ Elementary School, right? Not much security at that school, anyone could pick up a kid and he would just disappear (snaps fingers) like that. It would sure be a shame if that happened. I hope that’s not where we’re going.

  66. Monotreme says:

    @Mule Rider,

    You’ll have to be more specific than that, if you are hypothesizing that “comments on this blog” will split the nation apart. Mighty big leap, there.

  67. dcpetterson says:

    Alright, let’s be very clear on this. Bart and GROG, I’d appreciate answers from you both.

    Either your right-wing friends are openly advocating violence — or they are not. WHich is it?

    When they talk about “second amendment remedies” — when they talk about revolt against the government — when they talk about withdrawing from the Union — when they talk about the tree of liberty being watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants — when they talk about “tyranny” and compare their current protests to open revolt in the 1770’s —

    In all these cases, either they are openly calling for violence — or they are knowingly and intentionally using overblown rhetoric that they hope no one will take seriously/

    Which is it? Should we take these calls to armed revolt seriously, or should we start simply ignoring you guys as bullies who like to talk tuff to scare people, but who are just blowing a bunch of hot air?

    I’ll be happy to ignore your bloviating from now on, if you admit none of this irresponsible hyperbole is supposed to be taken seriously.

    One or the other. Is it a call to violence? Or is it fart noises?

  68. Todd Dugdale says:

    Monotreme wrote:
    I hope that’s not where we’re going.

    Nice store ya got here. Be a shame if somethin’ were to happen to it.

  69. shiloh says:

    On the bright side Mule Rider 😀 pretty sure nobody has threatened Nate Silver’s life or used the “F” word 25/26 times in one post at 538 recently …

    Just sayin’

  70. Bart DePalma says:

    shiloh says: Bartles again do you have reading comprehension deficit !!! as there was no proposition that Loughner was a follower of Ron Paul. Damn, you’re an idiot!

    I know its difficult to keep straight all the paranoid loon slanders posted here, so here is the one you claim does not exist:

    Chris Rich says on January 8, 2011 at 20:35: His politics, if you could call a weird mish mash of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto with a dash of Tolkein and Swift, politics, were some stew of lonely stoner delusions ineptly expressed. He had some commonalities with Ron Paul crackpots.

    Todd D: I will, however, go out on a limb and say that this Tucson shooting has been a PR disaster for the Right, no matter what subsequent investigation into Loughner’s affiliation reveals.

    That is certainly the intent of the Dem slander campaign.

    “They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat.

    Sheriff Clarence Dupnik: “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” he said. “And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

    Asswipes all.

  71. dcpetterson says:

    “I hope that’s not where we’re going.“

    I wonder just who Ms Angle thought would be “going” that way. Did she imagine that the people who supported Health Care Reform would begin seeking “second amendment remedies?” Or maybe that “second amendment remedies” would begin seeking themselves, without any actual people involved? Or would if her supporters started doing this, it would be some sort of amazing cosmic coincidence?

  72. dcpetterson says:

    Interesting. Bart believes Obama’s speeches in late 2008 and early 2009 that accurately described the state of the economy actually caused the economy to tank. In contrast, Bart believes that open calls for armed political violence cannot possibly contribute to armed political violence.

    Ok Bart, since you’re saying the noise you make is not to be taken seriously, I won’t take you seriously anymore. Fart noises it is.

  73. shortchain says:

    Bart remains the master of cherry-picking, misinterpreting, and taking things out of context.

    And it’s still libel, not slander…

  74. shiloh says:

    Again Bartles for the umpteenth time CR’s stand alone comment He had some commonalities with Ron Paul crackpots. wasn’t even about Ron Paul, but about RP crackpots, like yourself, eh.

    So give it a rest, dude ie there was no (((proposition))) that Loughner was a follower of Ron Paul.

    When one is in a hole, stop digging …

    >

    Re: Asswipes all

    (((Waaaahhhh! :::sniffle::: Waaaahhhh!)))

    >

    General Beringer: Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I’ve come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks.

    McKittrick: I don’t have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of shit.

    General Beringer: Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than that from you, sir. A man of your education.
    ~~~~~

    take care

  75. Todd Dugdale says:

    That is certainly the intent of the Dem slander campaign.

    When you have a County Sheriff saying that the incendiary rhetoric from the Right is dangerous, isn’t it a stretch to call this a “Dem slander campaign”?

    Look, fairly or unfairly, you have to admit that the Right has come out of this on the defensive. Why not just employ your re-defining skills to make anyone advocating violence as “not of the Right”? Don’t play the victim; it doesn’t suit you.

  76. Todd Dugdale says:

    BDP wrote:
    In what way not very good at his job?

    Bart, could you be any more of a partisan asswipe? You turn this tragedy into some kind of “gotcha” moment. Shame!

  77. shiloh says:

    Bart stop playin’ winger Global Thermonuclear War!

    How ’bout a nice game of chess? 😛

  78. Todd Dugdale says:

    dcpetterson wrote:
    Or would if her supporters started doing this, it would be some sort of amazing cosmic coincidence?

    Well said, sir.

  79. Mule Rider says:

    “You’ll have to be more specific than that, if you are hypothesizing that “comments on this blog” will split the nation apart.”

    The “comments on this blog” (are just one of many things that) represent the deep-seated hate and division in this country.

    That’s all I’m saying. Nothing more. Nothing less.

  80. GROG says:

    Well, according to reports, it looks like Lougher acted alone. I’m sure the far left is pissed that an active tea party member wasn’t an accomplice.

    DC said: When they talk about “second amendment remedies” — when they talk about revolt against the government — when they talk about withdrawing from the Union — when they talk about the tree of liberty being watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants — when they talk about “tyranny” and compare their current protests to open revolt in the 1770′s –

    Only a partisan idiot would think these things incenuate openly advocating violence. Angle was warning against second amendment remedies, she wasn’t calling for them. If a state were to withdraw from the Union, that state wouldn’t take violent actions against the other 49 states. If you’re comparing Tea Partiers going to rallies and wearing those funny hats to actual revolts in the 1770’s, you’re just plain nuts.

  81. Jean says:

    GROG,

    re: The filth being spouted on leftwing cable TV and blogs makes it appear as if the far left has been waiting for a tragedy like this to happen so they could use it as a political oppurtunity on which to pounce.

    And you wonder why?

    http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=active&biw=1440&bih=787&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=tea+party+%22we+came+unarmed+this+time%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

  82. GROG says:

    @Todd:

    Sherrif Dupnik is a Democrat.

  83. Jean says:

    GROG,

    Democrats, progressives and independents have not been waiting for a tragedy to happen so. as you claim, “they could use it as a political opportunity on which to pounce.” but I do think we have had that sinking feeling that the tea party was pushing the rhetoric towards a tragedy becoming inevitable.

  84. Todd Dugdale says:

    drfunguy wrote:
    Right wing commentators (and political candidates) have a two decade track record of calling for violent attacks on liberals, alleged liberals and federal agents in general.

    GROG wrote:
    Only a partisan idiot would think these things incenuate openly advocating violence.

    I’m having a hard time imagining what “incenuating” might mean.

    If you’re comparing Tea Partiers going to rallies and wearing those funny hats to actual revolts in the 1770′s, you’re just plain nuts.

    Who is really doing that?
    You do, however, have a sizeable number of quotations from those on the Right invoking violence as some kind of Holy Consequence of “going against The People” (which sounds decidedly leftist, so obviously anyone acting on those words is a leftist). It’s not some kind of unavoidable natural thing. It takes someone crazy enough to actually pull the trigger and kill a 9 year-old girl in the process.

    You can’t repeatedly invoke the sacred violence of the Revolution and denounce the consequences of that rhetoric when some mentally-ill person thinks that you’ll consider him a hero if he does the dirty work for you.

  85. GROG says:

    Jean,

    How about this rhetoric from the left:

    http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

    Language like “Behind enemy lines” and “targeting” and the use of bullseyes.

  86. GROG says:

    insinuate….my bad

  87. Jean says:

    Thanks, GROG, but on the link you provided I do not see any Sarah Palin crosshairs of a gun sight, no “don’t retreat, RELOAD” mantra.

    So much for trying to establish the “liberals do it too” equivalence argument.

  88. Monotreme says:

    You must’ve missed this, posted at 14:05.

    The legality of such devices is exactly the crux of the argument.

    I submit as a hypothesis that the reason that no 9 year old in the United States has been killed with a 120 mm mortar, TOW missile (thanks for that, SC), ICBM, small thermonuclear device, hand grenade, and the like, is that the Federal government tightly regulates such devices and they are not in general use.

    Disprove my hypothesis by reasoned argument and evidence.

  89. Todd Dugdale says:

    GROG wrote:
    Sherrif Dupnik is a Democrat.

    That is astounding, because you have told us that all Democrats are unemployed, drug-abusing, welfare cheats. We sit around the house all day waiting to celebrate the latest abortion cases, don’t we?
    Now, a Democrat can be employed in law enforcement! In an elected capacity! In Arizona! Maybe he’s not a “true” Democrat. Obviously, no “true” Democrat could serve in law enforcement.

    Jean wrote:
    I do think we have had that sinking feeling that the tea party was pushing the rhetoric towards a tragedy becoming inevitable

    This is the bottom line.
    The mere fact that it seemed “obvious” to millions that the Right was behind this is proof that the Right has engaged in “over-reach”.
    You can screech about unfairness as much as you like, but the immediate impression of the majority was that a wingnut was acting upon the Right’s agenda.

    Please keep digging that hole. It’s not nearly deep enough yet.

  90. shiloh says:

    Again, the Rep meme for quite some time: Yes we suck, but were not as bad as the other side! 😉 er grog but, but, but the other side does it too as he becomes totally discombobulated daily trying to search for faux equivalency lol

    90% of grog’s posts = but, but, but …

  91. Monotreme says:

    Who Is Jared Lee Loughner? From the Southern Poverty Law Center

    http://j.mp/hQMMgC

  92. dcpetterson says:

    GROG:
    If you’re comparing Tea Partiers going to rallies and wearing those funny hats to actual revolts in the 1770′s, you’re just plain nuts.

    So GROG answered my question — actual calls to violence, or senseless overblown rhetoric and empty threats?

    The answer from GROG is the latter. The right wing’s rhetoric is no more than colorful nonsense and should be ignored.

    Thanks. Bart’s turn.

  93. dcpetterson says:

    I am still a little confused though, GROG.

    Angle was warning against second amendment remedies, she wasn’t calling for them.

    And who do you think would activate these “second amendment remedies?” Would that be people on the right who might get violent? Or would it just be the guns going off on their own?

    If a state were to withdraw from the Union, that state wouldn’t take violent actions against the other 49 states.

    They love the country so much they would disband it? Really? Just because a few elections don’t go the way they want? Do you honestly feel this is a realistic threat, or is it more fart noises?

    If you’re comparing Tea Partiers going to rallies and wearing those funny hats to actual revolts in the 1770′s, you’re just plain nuts.

    The hats are not in any way connected to the revolt that happened in the 1770’s? Really? The “tea party” has nothing to do with the armed rebellion of the 1770’s? Completely unrelated? There is no effort being made to refer to the American Revolution? Really? I’ll believe you if you say so. That would mean the people wearing these costumes are too stupid to know what they refer to, which is entirely possible. I’ll take your word on it, if that’s what you’re saying.

  94. shortchain says:

    GROG,

    What are those icons? They look like no “bullseyes” I’ve ever seen. They certainly don’t look like the view through a gun-sight, as Palin’s did (and let’s not forget the “reload” metaphor). “enemy lines” is something I don’t care for, and I don’t defend it. In fact, I’ll never give another penny to the DLC (since I never have before, this won’t constitute a hardship). Not like some here have supported Palin, stood up for her, criticized those who point out what a whack-job she is. Ooops. Sorry, didn’t mean to get so personal.

    Wouldn’t we need, according to your own standard of what constitutes evidence, for something more precisely like the material on the right? If we have to, you know, “interpret” statements, it’s not proof.

  95. Todd Dugdale says:

    Monotreme wrote:
    Who Is Jared Lee Loughner?

    Bloody hell! Now the SPLC is backing me up?

    At one point, Loughner refers disparagingly to “currency that’s not backed by gold or silver.” The idea that silver and gold are the only “constitutional” money is widespread in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement that produced so much violence in the 1990s. It’s linked to the core Patriot theory that the Federal Reserve is actually a private corporation run for the benefit of unnamed international bankers. So-called Patriots say paper money — what they refer to with a sneer as “Federal Reserve notes” — is not lawful.

    At this early stage, I think Loughner is probably best described as a mentally ill or unstable person who was influenced by the rhetoric and demonizing propaganda around him. Ideology may not explain why he allegedly killed, but it could help explain how he selected his target.

    One thing that seems clear is that Giffords, who was terribly wounded but survived, was the nearest and most obvious representative of “the government” that Loughner could find. Another is that he likely absorbed some of his anger from the vitriolic political atmosphere in the United States in general and Arizona in particular.”

    I still believe that Loughner was a creature of the “sovereign citizen” movement. The only issue left to be resolved is if the Right can credibly disown that movement.

  96. Todd Dugdale says:

    Shortchain wrote:
    “enemy lines” is something I don’t care for, and I don’t defend it. In fact, I’ll never give another penny to the DLC (since I never have before, this won’t constitute a hardship).

    The DLC is obviously not the “true” Democratic Party.

    Any hint of violence attributed to them can easily be dismissed in this way.

    Hey, it works for the Republican Party and the sovereigns.

    Really, if the Republicans are at the point where they claim that they are no less guilty than the DLC, then we win.

  97. Armchair Warlord says:

    If you don’t mind me butting in for a moment on the subject of gun control (which always seems to come up every time someone gets shot in America), the scope of the Second Amendment is easy to lay out if you look at how it was implemented in the eighteenth century.

    The purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow American citizens to keep the weapons needed to fight as irregular infantry if necessary – a legacy of the minutemen of the Revolution. It was not intended to allow private citizens to own heavy weapons of the type that would require a crew to operate, such as cannons.

    As such the line should be drawn at any weapon which requires a crew to operate – excluding weapons such as belt-fed machine guns and your 120mm mortar but allowing weapons like magazine-fed, automatic assault rifles.

    I honestly don’t get why people think adding a couple of arbitrary restrictions (10-round mag, semi-auto, etc) to the above would make them safer – history has shown that a trained and determined man with a kitchen knife is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a tank. They also don’t exclude weapons like say an M1 Garand, which is honestly a pretty dangerous gun. 😉

  98. Monotreme says:

    @GROG:

    I denounce all calls for extrajudicial violence, regardless of the nature of the target.

    Have you got anything other than a tu quoque argument to offer?

  99. Monotreme says:

    So, AW, I can operate this fission bomb all by myself. Same with a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher. Same with a grenade.

    I think your argument works a lot better as a “utility” argument. That is, does the device have some other use than killing or maiming someone? I believe that gets closer to the intent of the framers.

  100. dcpetterson says:

    GROG, I condemn those acts of violent rhetoric. There was no excuse for them. And threats against the President — any President — should be treated seriously, and the perpetrators imprisoned. That sort of protest is over the top, and I repudiate it.

    Likewise, Halloran should not have said what he did about Sarah Palin and Levi Johnson, and I condemn those remarks and distance myself from them. Of course, he did not advocate violence against any individuals or against the country, as the right wing Tea Partiers and their public spokespeople do. Nevertheless, A public figure even hinting at wanting something untoward to happen to another public figure is something that should not happen in American politics.

    Your turn. Repudiate the remarks of Angle and Palin and Beck and Limbaugh and the tens of thousands of Tea Partiers. Time to man up. Either distinace yourself from their violent rhetoric, or tell us it’s all just meaningless noise that no one should take seriously. And then we can go back to having civil conversations without that overblown rhetoric about “tyranny” and “second amendment” and all that other nonsense.

  101. shortchain says:

    GROG,

    I was aware of, and disapproved of, the threats against Bush. And, as I said earlier, assassination should be unthinkable. I hadn’t heard about the case in NH, but give us a break. A candidate for the NH state house? You think that stacks up against Angle and Palin?

    I’ll add this guy to my “no support — ever” list. Did you notice that he was roundly condemned, not only by Republicans, but by Democrats? Where are the Republicans who condemned Palin? Not around here. You were still in her camp as little as a week ago, as I recall.

    That’s not even a “tu quoque” — it’s pathetic.

  102. dcpetterson says:

    GROG, I know you like that “Yeah? well the left did it too!” argument. But you guys are setting records.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/health/policy/25health.html

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1979008,00.html

    It’s time to distance yourself from this, and join us in calling for a more civil national discussion.

  103. shiloh says:

    grog barts but, but bush/palin …

    The defense rests as (1) disgruntled Iraqi citizen 😀 threw a shoe at bush and nobody took mama grizzly serious enough to do her any harm. hmm, grog may turn out to be more entertaining than his idol, Bartles. A close battle for idiotic irrelevancy, eh.

    >

    btw, Iraqi’s prepare for cheney/bush’s next visit! 😛

    carry on

  104. Todd Dugdale says:

    Hey, I’m still waiting for those examples where “Fidel Castro has called for the assassination of federal judges, elected Representatives, or 9 year-old girls.”

    Since Castro is the Western Hemisphere’s leading leftist, It should be relatively easy to come up with those examples…. unless Castro isn’t leftist enough for the Right.

    Maybe the Weathermen, who disbanded nearly 40 years ago and who have all passed through the US judicial system, are the only ” real ” leftists. But even they haven’t weighed in on the Tucson shooting.

    We tend to prosecute those on the Left who advocate violence.
    The Right, however, is merely populated by patriots.

  105. GROG says:

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

    ‘That’s nice Mr. President.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

  106. Todd Dugdale says:

    dcpetteerson wotre:
    Your turn. Repudiate the remarks of Angle and Palin and Beck and Limbaugh and the tens of thousands of Tea Partiers. Time to man up

    Time to duck the question.
    Those remarks were merely “patriotic”.

    For the Right, this is the Sixties, only without Youth, free love, and psychedelic drugs.
    They can easily disavow anything that they say.

    They can, of course, bear arms and show those liberals what the Constitution really means. But that in no way means that they advocate violence. Guns just go off in response to “socialist tyranny”. It’s nobody’s fault.

    Well, actually, it’s the victims’ fault. But we will wring our hands as long as Fox News tells us to. But no longer than that.

  107. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Interesting discussion. Sad, but interesting.

    Henceforth, unless their comments have some generally acceptable value and are reasonably cited, GROG and Bart will be essentially ostracized by me. At best, they will get the following as a response:

    Bart DeLiar said: “baaaaarrrrrrt!” (imagine the source of such a sound)
    GROG said: “grrrrrraaaaaaaaooooog! (ditto)

  108. shiloh says:

    Maybe the Weathermen

    you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

    btw, Nixon told me to “love America or leave it” and unfortunately for the wingers ie agnew/ailes/safire I stayed 😉 and in a moment of weakness 😀 joined the USN ok, ok the economy sucked at the time …

    Don’t follow leaders, watch your parkin’ meters ~ Alanis appears to be reading cue cards for the lyrics lol

  109. Mainer says:

    At this point in the game he said, she said or your side is meaner than my side are all for the most part moot. Those on the extreams of either side are entrenched in their positions and nothing said here or any where else is going to move them. But both sides and for right or wrong in particular the right had best realize that the big middle of Americans that only want their society to function effectively and to be governed by adults are now putting into words their frustrations about some of this verbal horse shit that we are supposed to accept as the new norm in political discourse.

    News out lets are going to be much more aware of over the top comments and most likely will feel much more empowered to call people on it. It remains to be seen how some of the more radical or reactionary elements on air will respond. Will Beck or Rush really step in it? There are many ways this could bite politicians. It will be interesting to see how many actual adults we have elected in this country.

  110. shortchain says:

    GROG,

    Too vague and un-aimed to incite anybody. And notice the “if they bring a knife” — threats of retaliation aren’t in the same class as the rifle-sight views, the “reload”, etc in Palin’s case, together with all the other elements in Angle, etc, etc. You are finding tiny, minor, sporadic occurrences of questionable rhetoric which, even today, doesn’t seem like much.

    The difference is that many people pointed out last year the over-the-top imagery and rhetoric on the right.

    There’s no comparison, simply none.

  111. dcpetterson says:

    GROG, I’m still waiting for the answers to the questions I asked you at 16:30.

    Unless I get answers, I’ll assume all your rhetoric should be put into that “utter nonsense” bucket you seem to want to put the right’s threats of armed revolt into.

  112. shiloh says:

    Teleprompter, not cue cards, I digress 😉

  113. dcpetterson says:

    @Max

    Henceforth, unless their comments have some generally acceptable value and are reasonably cited, GROG and Bart will be essentially ostracized by me.

    I think we've hit the real stone wall. The Right must either admit they are openly advocating violent revolution — or they have to admit they've been spouting nonsense for three years because they have no actual rational argument.

    That's the choice. None of them can own up to either option. Which means we're free to ignore them (if we choose not to believe their rhetoric) or to lock them up as violent traitors (if we take them seriously). I vote for Option A.

  114. Todd Dugdale says:

    GROG wrote:
    If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia

    And thus was the Historic Philadelphia Knife Fight begun.
    Millions wept as knife-fighters were felled by gunfire.
    The dead were beyond numbering. Which made it so much easier for the feds to cover up the brutality. Liberals everywhere laughed.

    From this, the nation learned that any massacre must include a federal judge, a House Representative, and a child.

    The noble deaths of those who died wielding knives against the brutal Federal Government’s guns cannot be negated by gun violence. Only a true Republican shooting half a dozen people (or more) can truly cleanse the nation of the horror.

    Give it up, GROG.

  115. shortchain says:

    Well, I don’t know about anybody else, but all these incitements to violence GROG has dug up have inspired me to ZZZZZZZ…

    Seriously, who is capable of imagining these isolated snippets and sporadic generalities will inspire some vicious liberal madman (assuming that said “liberal madman” wouldn’t just take another prozac(TM) and zone out) to an act of violence?

  116. Todd Dugdale says:

    dcpetterson wrote:
    or they have to admit they’ve been spouting nonsense for three years because they have no actual rational argument.

    BINGO!
    It was all a hoax for the benefit of “the liberal media”.

    God, that sounds so bloody lame, but yet so true,

    And we all “know” that anything that sounds true , is true.

  117. shiloh says:

    And we all “know” that anything that sounds true , is true.

    Repetition has always been part of the Reps game plan ie again When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

    Cue the 2004 Rep convention clip again: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 ~ terrorists, terrorists, terrorists ~ Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein …

    Osama bin Laden

    It’s really quite basic: If you can’t dazzle them w/brilliance, baffle them w/bullshit!

    rinse, lather, repeat …

  118. Monotreme says:

    For those with no time for Freepers, or who prefer their hate speech in 140-character bits:

    http://viletweets.com/

  119. Todd Dugdale says:

    shiloh wrote:
    Cue the 2004 Rep convention clip again: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 ~ terrorists, terrorists, terrorists ~ Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein …

    Yes, I remember that Fundamentalist Islam was the Challenge of the Century.

    Please, tell me that some 22 year-old Caucasian is part of the Wahabist Conspiracy To Destroy Our Civilisation.

  120. Todd Dugdale says:

    BDP wrote:
    Asswipes all.

    Please detail for us how many people died as a result of the “asswipe” statements which you invoke as as some kind of weird defence.

    Less than one, perhaps?

  121. Mainer says:

    And so much of politics is perception. And so many people have the perception that if this exact incident was not directly caused by over heated rhetoric then the next one could or will be…..silent thoughts are no longer so silent and hidden perceptions are not so hidden. We can argue semantics about how vile some of you seem to think the left is but right now it appears the apolitical aren’t talking about the left but they sure as hell seem to be talking about the right………or at least the perceptions I am picking up around here are in that direction.

    As isolated as we may be and as supportive as this area is to Republicans that has been a surprise.

  122. shiloh says:

    Monotreme, thanx for reminding me why I’m not on Twitter lol and rarely visit Facebook as Betty White said quite eloquently, I didn’t know what Facebook was, and now that I do know what it is, I have to say, it sounds like a huge waste of time.

    Re: the information highway ~ TMI …

  123. Todd Dugdale says:

    Mule Rider wrote:
    I’m increasingly and thoroughly convinced that there is no United States of America anymore.

    You should look into the sovereign movement. As they tell it, there is no United States: only Guam, Puerto Rico, and D.C.

    They’ll probably ask you to shoot a 9 year-old girl to prove your loyalty, but that’s just to make sure that you’re not a fed. And you can always blame it on leftists, anyway.

  124. Bart DePalma says:

    OK, let’s test the theory that political assassins are conservatives or inspired by conservative violent political rhetoric.

    JFK assassin – Oswald – Communist

    RFK assassin – Sirhan Sirhan – Arab angry about RFK support for Israel during 1967 war.

    Ford attempted assassin – Lynette Fromme – Manson groupie

    Ford attempted assassin – Sarah Jane Moore – Communist revolutionary wannabe

    Reagan attempted assassin – John Hinkley – Insane man with a fixation on Jodie Foster

    Gabrielle Giffords attempted assassin – Jared Lee Loughner – Likely insane, left-wing, quite liberal, fave books include Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.

    Two are insane, three leftists, an angry Arab and a Manson groupie whose politics are highly unlikely to be conservative.

    No conservatives or anyone inspired by conservative violent rhetoric.

    That was easy.

  125. Jean says:

    Bart,

    re: Gabrielle Giffords attempted assassin – Jared Lee Loughner – Likely insane, left-wing, quite liberal, fave books include Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.

    And libertarian that you are, Bart, how could you forget Ayn Rand.

  126. Mr. Universe says:

    One or the other. Is it a call to violence? Or is it fart noises?

    Regrettably, I am LMAO.

    Sherriff Dupnik is a Democrat

    Funny, I didn’t think to ask for his political afiliation before appreciating his comment.

  127. Todd Dugdale says:

    BDP wrote:
    Jared Lee Loughner – Likely insane

    Being insane is a requisite for the sovereign citizen movement, much as it was for the militia movement.

    McVeigh killed kids, too. He didn’t kill a House Rep or a federal judge, but he would have been pleased to know that he did. This doesn’t count as an assassination, though.

    Also, odd that you include the Manson cult as “leftists”. Please point me to any examples of the Democratic Party endorsing this violence. As you’ve made clear, unless a Party explicitly endorses an act of violence, their hands are clean. You sound very unfair, Bart.

    “Leftists” are just people that you don’t like, aren’t they?

    Maybe you should boost your legal practise with some of the sovereign business.
    You could file billion-dollar liens against judges, cops, State government lackeys, and county clerks. If you go to jail, you will prove that the courts are corrupt. Oh, and here’s a tip that will bring in work for you: the Federal income tax is unconstitutional or something. Just be aware that sovereigns believe that all attorneys are members of the BAR (British Accredited Registry) and under the command of the Queen. So don’t hum “Rule Britannia” during a consultation.

    Oh, and that gold-fringed flag in the courtroom? That proves that you are in an “admiralty court” and subject to “maritime law”. So bring some Dramamine, because you might get sea-sick.

    On the plus side, I hear that they pay in gold or silver.

  128. dcpetterson says:

    Bart, you’ve already agreed that your rhetoric is meaningless. You don’t take your own violent revolutionary rhetoric seriously. So there’s no reason for any of us to take anything you say seriously.

  129. Monotreme says:

    Bart,

    Please read the linked article again. Clearly, you did not comprehend its meaning.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/

  130. Mr. Universe says:

    I missed the memo that ‘Mein Kampf’ was a lefty fav. I’ll have to brush up on my fascism.

  131. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ political assassins

    and then 538’s deflection meister talks about attempted assassins. ok, deflections can be fun … Bart what category would the KKK fall under ? The John Birch Society an RNC sponsor ? the prison guards who carried out cheney/bush’s Geneva convention violation orders … and interesting you don’t mention Timothy McVeigh as he assassinated/killed a lot of innocent citizens, eh.

    and how come it took you this long to come up w/your red herring as was it a slow day at the racist/winger sites you frequent and only now copy pasted someone else’s post from another winger forum.

    Bart, we realize your having a bad day at 538 as per usual ie Asswipes all. so no need to further embarrass yourself …

    Again, who are you trying to convince w/your ancient history, copy/pasted nonsensical talkin’ pts ?!? as “we” are talkin’ about (((your))) current yahoo, teabagger party! not what happened (50) years ago.

    (((Waaaahhhh! :::sniffle::: Waaaahhhh!)))

    take care, blessings

  132. shiloh says:

    btw Bartles, since you went back (50) years, there were a few actual American assassinations, not attempts, left off your list:

    Emit Till

    Medger Evers

    Birmingham Sunday victims, 4 young black girls in church.

    Malcolm X

    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Fred Hampton

    George Wallace

    Karen Silkwood

    U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan

    Harvey Milk

    Greensboro 5

    Matthew Shepard

    George Richard Tiller, MD

    Stephen Tyrone Johns, Holocaust Museum

    Looking up this list was easy also and did I mention you’re an idiot …

  133. drfunguy says:

    @Grog
    Seriously, do you put the “they bring a knife, we bring a gun” rhetoric in the same category as “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times” Ann Coulter
    Or Gordon Liddy calling for “Head shots! Head shots!” on federal agents?

  134. drfunguy says:

    @Bart
    Speaking of McVeigh, he seems to be missing from your list. And how about the guy who shot Dr. Tiller?
    And Mein Kampf is leftist, gosh I learn _so_ much from you.

  135. Armchair Warlord says:

    Mono,

    Explosive devices have never been (to my knowledge anyways) protected under the Second Amendment. If they were fireworks would be easier to buy. 😉

    Although I note that fifty years ago in some states you could go get an explosives license and buy dynamite for your personal use at the hardware store – different times, I guess.

    On a more serious note.

    This attack scares the hell out of me. It’s like something you’d hear about from Pakistan – too many people lose sight of the fact that it can happen here, too. Democracy breaks down when members of the opposition have cause to fear for their lives.

  136. dcpetterson says:

    @drfunguy

    Bart has already admitted his rhetoric should not be taken seriously. He’s a parody of a conservative — and, he says, we should not believe conservative statements anyway. It’s all told in jest.

    It’s too bad, though, that the media (and far too many voters) take the bart noises seriously. The people who bart out the sounds know it’s simple flatulence. I hope the rest of the country catches up.

  137. Mr. Universe says:

    @Armchair

    This attack scares the hell out of me.

    Me too. I guess when I run for Oregon’s fifth district, I’ll have to keep in mind that I’m a potential target. Price of democracy, eh?

  138. Mr. Universe says:

    GROG said;

    No reasonable person can possibly conclude that she [Angle] was “calling for ” armed insurrection from those quotes above. In fact, she was warning against it.

    I’m guessing you failed the reading comprehension part of the SAT exam.

    But your point is valid. I am as incredulous as you are that reasonable people could draw such conclusions. The point of my article is that unreasonable people can draw such conclusions when presented with this kind of rhetoric.

  139. Bart DePalma says:

    Law professor Glenn Reynolds summarizes the situation perfectly:

    I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America’s political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

  140. GROG says:

    Bart said: Gabrielle Giffords attempted assassin – Jared Lee Loughner – Likely insane, left-wing, quite liberal, fave books include Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.

    Let’s not forget Loughner is also an athiest, pot smoking, conspiracy theorist, who is obsessed that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Sounds like a real follower of Palin and Angle. LMAO.

  141. Bart DePalma says:

    Shiloh:

    U’s thesis concerned political assassinations caused by conservative incendiary political speech. Your list generally goes off the reservation into racial killings by white Dem racists and very likely Dem black racists, conspiracy theories (Silkwood), the Jonestown cult killings (Ryan), disgruntled government worker who lost his job (Milk); a leftist who attacked the Holocaust Museum, and an abortionist killing. These are not political assassinations caused by conservative incendiary political speech.

  142. Bart DePalma says:

    Now we get to the base purpose of these slanders – silencing political opponents. Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers

  143. shortchain says:

    Re: Bart and GROG:

    Did somebody just bart in here?

    Instapundit as an authority? Why not say “instapundit” rather than try and dress the well-known dimwit up as someone worthwhile? I’m guessing Bart is just playing to the people who don’t know about him.

    I need some fresh air.

    I’m with DC — this is not serious argument, it’s just dishonest attempts to avoid accepting the reality.

  144. GROG says:

    shortchain said: I’m with DC — this is not serious argument, it’s just dishonest attempts to avoid accepting the reality.

    Exactly. Now you’re catching on. That’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning. The left has been making dishonest attempts to avoid accepting the reality that this was a lone, insane, madman who has no ties to either political party. There’s no evidence that he was even familiar with what Palin or Angle might have ever said.

    It’s shameful, disgraceful political oppurtunism by the left.

  145. Monotreme says:

    I don’t think either of you guys have read the link which Mr. U posted in the original article and which I reposted in my 20:54 comment. Here it is again:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/

    Also,
    http://www.slate.com/id/2280619/

    No one — let me emphasize — no onenot a single freakin’ person — on this thread is drawing a causative link between what Sharron Angle said, or what Sarah Palin posted, or anything else in the batshit crazy right wing world of words and images, and the events in Tucson Saturday.

    No one. Nobody. No causal link.

    What we are saying, if you care to listen, is that by creating a toxic stew of violent and evil imagery in order to scare voters, that candidates on the Right Wing Nut Job end of the spectrum have inadvertently and incrementally increased the probability that someone with an unstable mental state will commit an act of violence.

    It’s a hypothesis. Either find evidence supporting it, or find evidence to refute it. In short, argue like a human. Use the big crinkly thing inside your skull to develop a reasoned, logical argument. Otherwise, we bin you with the Right Wing Nut Jobs.

  146. Monotreme says:

    Armchair Warlord,

    I hear you. Your dynamite example actually gets to my utility argument; on the family farm of the 1930s, dynamite was a pretty useful tool (for example, for stump removal) but in the urban environment of the 2010s with the availability of backhoes, dynamite is no longer the best tool for the job of stump removal and so its use has been heavily regulated.

    Your point about explosives is well-taken as well. I think we could argue that the founding fathers could not have possibily conceived of dynamite. It was invented by Alfred Nobel in the late 19th century in order to prevent war, and of course it had the opposite effect. People are good about blowing each other up for political or other purposes. They couldn’t have envisioned napalm, or thermonuclear weapons.

    Which is precisely my Second Amendment argument. Even Justice Scalia, an originalist if there ever was one, recognizes that there are times when we have difficulty divining the intent of the Founding Fathers applied to our modern world.

    It scares me too, in the same way driving on ice scares me. Despite the care that we take, when the car finds black ice and spins out of control, there is nothing to be done but wait it out and hope that we haven’t cocked the wheels wrong and that we don’t have too much speed and that the ice patch isn’t too large. I’m in that frame of mind now as we pray for the victims of this senseless tragedy.

  147. shiloh says:

    Again, interesting 538’s #1 winger racist, Bart DePalma, who coincidentally is also 538’s most nonsensical, whining, totally obsessed w/Obama conservative troll, keeps talkin’ about Dem racists w/out citation or verifiable/certifible links to back up his laughable/pathetic racist talkin’ points!

    Repeating ~ interesting 538’s #1 winger racist, Bart DePalma, who coincidentally is also 538’s most nonsensical, whining, totally obsessed w/Obama conservative troll, keeps talkin’ about Dem racists w/out citation or verifiable/certifible links to back up his laughable/pathetic racist talkin’ points!

    You guessed it, one for the road! ~ interesting 538’s #1 winger racist, Bart DePalma, who coincidentally is also 538’s most nonsensical, whining, totally obsessed w/Obama conservative troll, keeps talkin’ about Dem racists w/out citation or verifiable/certifible links to back up his laughable/pathetic racist talkin’ points!

    Bart, as well as being born a Rep, were you also born a racist and a (((whiner)))~ rhetorical question …

    >

    “Our Republic Has Stumbled, But Has Not Yet Fallen”

    My descriptive phrases do not begin to do justice to the damage these policies are doing to the country.

    April 23, 2010 10:46 AM

    I wonder whether I live in America anymore when the government imposes its will in opposition to the people. That is what ruling classes do, not representatives of the people.

    May 2, 2010 4:21 PM
    ~~~~~

    (((Waaaahhhh! :::sniffle::: Waaaahhhh!)))

    take care and do seek out psychiatric care for all your racial phobias as it may set you free to seek out the truth about the real America you live in … or not!

    and of course grog continues to have his head up Bart’s butt! 😉 which is more disturbing lol

    Did I mention … nevermind.

  148. Monotreme says:

    This choice of legal representation supports Mr. U’s thesis about the need for notoriety.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0111/Unabomber_lawyer_to_represent_Loughner.html

  149. shiloh says:

    No one — let me emphasize — no one — not a single freakin’ person on this thread is drawing a causative link between what Sharron Angle said, or what Sarah Palin posted, or anything else in the batshit crazy right wing world of words and images, and the events in Tucson Saturday.

    No one. Nobody. No causal link.
    ~~~~~

    Racists get very defensive and nonsensical when they get backed into a corner. It’s that basic. And go O/T like there’s no tomorrow ie deflecting to (50) years ago, law professor Glenn Reynolds, imaginary Dem racists Bart’s continual winger projection!, proposed rational Dem legislation which has no chance of passing thru a boehner controlled H of R, etc. etc.

    Conservative racist deflection, it’s what’s for dinner, eh.

  150. Monotreme says:

    In fact, much of the message among Republicans last year, as they sought to exploit the Tea Party phenomenon, centered — like the Tea Party moniker itself — on this imagery of armed revolution. Popular spokespeople like Ms. Palin routinely drop words like “tyranny” and “socialism” when describing the president and his allies, as if blind to the idea that Americans legitimately faced with either enemy would almost certainly take up arms.

    It’s not that such leaders are necessarily trying to incite violence or hysteria; in fact, they’re not. It’s more that they are so caught up in a culture of hyperbole, so amused with their own verbal flourishes and the ensuing applause, that — like the bloggers and TV hosts to which they cater — they seem to lose their hold on the power of words.

    — Matt Bai, New York Times
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09bai.html

  151. drfunguy says:

    “Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.”
    This would only silence opponants who have nothing to say beyond making threats and inciting violence.

  152. Mule Rider says:

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/01/giffords-clarence-dupnik-blunt-comments-/1

    Sheriff in Giffords case under fire for blunt remarks

    Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s blunt comments about the political atmosphere in Arizona have attracted attention from the left and right.

    Pima County (Ariz.) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat, is under fire for his remarks about the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
    CAPTIONBy Chris Morrison, APHours after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head during a Tucson rampage, Dupnik called Arizona “a mecca for prejudice and bigotry” and blasted “vitriol” in today’s political rhetoric.

    On Sunday, the sheriff at the center of the shooting investigation seemed to go after the state’s gun laws. Dupnik also took after campaign finance laws that allow ads against a candidate to be made without disclosing donors, in an interview with Fox News.

    Dupnik, a Democrat, was chastised by his home-state senator, Republican Jon Kyl, for making inappropriate remarks. “It was speculation,” Kyl said Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation. On the conservative RedState blog, Dupnik is singled out for “commentary” and bloggers predict he’ll be defeated for re-election.

    MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann called Dupnik’s comments “extraordinary.” In November, Olbermann was temporarily suspended from the cable network for making political donations to several Democrats before the midterm elections — including one to Giffords.

    There’s now also a Facebook page titled “Clarence Dupnik is my Hero.”

    Dupnik, 74, has been sheriff of sprawling Pima County since 1980. Outspoken and often partisan, Dupnik refused last year to enforce Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The law requires local and state law enforcement to ask people about their immigration status if they are suspected to be in the United States illegally.

    The Arizona law is being appealed in federal court. Dupnik was unabashed in criticizing the Arizona Legislature for passing the measure, calling state lawmakers “racists.”

  153. mclever says:

    @drfunguy

    “Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.”

    Much as I applaud the desire to remove escalatory rhetoric from our public discourse, I worry about creating laws such as this that restrict speech. “Could be perceived” is very loose terminology, and I can see how such a law could be used to persecute one’s political opponents over trivial or nuanced language rather than targeting the truly destructive tone from rabble-rousers. (There, I used the word “target.” Could that be perceived as threatening?)

    Furthermore, in the unlikely event that our government truly did get taken over by a fascistic element and needed some healthy protesting to draw the public’s attention to the impending crisis, then this would be handing that fascistic leader the tools to lock up or silence any critics.

    I agree that direct threats against the President or any sitting elected official should be verboten, but we have to be careful about condemning all “language that could be perceived…”

  154. drfunguy says:

    @McIver
    I agree with you.
    I generally believe that free speech should be as little restricted as possible.
    I was just pointing out the absurdity of Bart’s claim that the proposed law would ‘silence’ anyone.

  155. shortchain says:

    I oppose an over-reaction to the events also. There’s no need to make a law about this, and it wouldn’t be effective anyway, any more than speeding laws prevent speeding. By the time this got through, it would simply set a new benchmark and normalize the behavior.

    Eliminationist talk and the kind of imagery Palin’s website should simply be beyond the pale by common agreement.

    Which reminds me: MR, it isn’t necessary that we all agree on much of anything to make a go of this country. All that is necessary is that we agree to settle our differences at the ballot box and through discussion and debate, not violence. If we do that, then we’ll manage. It’s the continual suggestion that violence could be useful or necessary (ala Angle) and the persistent hyperbolic imagery and speech (ala Palin) that is a problem.

  156. Mule Rider says:

    “It’s the continual suggestion that violence could be useful or necessary (ala Angle) and the persistent hyperbolic imagery and speech (ala Palin) that is a problem.”

    Yep, although you seemed to have (conveniently) left out the continual suggestion by numerous elements on the left that Bush be executed in some horrific fashion for much of the 2001-2009 time period. Go to GROG’s link above if you need examples.

  157. Mr. Universe says:

    I should point out that I remain a staunch first amendment advocate despite my objections to the inflammatory rhetoric. But, just as gun ownership is (and should be) legal, unlimited use of the tool should have consequences. We punish people who misuse guns. We really can’t do that to Sharron Angle even though I personally think she has a little bit to do with the Tucson massacre though not as much as the gunman. Once you speak a possibility (that people take up arms in ‘second amendment remedies’), you give that possibility legitimacy. In a public forum, Angle gave permission for a nutjob to do the Tucson Massacre.

    I don’t think speech should be limited but perhaps there should be sanctions for those who abuse it. For someone so eager to exercise the freedom of speech, Angle has been remarkably silent on the issue while the news outlets have been full of articles concerning responsibility for ones words.

  158. shiloh says:

    All that is necessary is that we agree to settle our differences at the ballot box and through discussion and debate, not violence.

    Whereas I will agree rhetoric on the left can be over-the-top as well, it comes down to degrees. Again, w/Reps recently, it’s a cottage industry, especially since Obama’s election as even Rep politicians are makin’ continual fools of themselves by their ad nauseam unstatesmanlike rhetoric.

    And yes, Dem politicians do it also ie one of my faves: Rep health care plan ~ Don’t get sick and if you do get sick die quickly! hmm, wonder if that was tongue-in-cheek. 😛

    Again, a lot of it has to do w/Reps being really, really, really sore losers ie Bartles, the coup de grace being Barack Hussein Obama, elected the 44th President of the United States of America! sending many die hard wingers into therapy …

    A winger Katy bar the door 😉 if you will where total winger Obama obsession, we’re talkin’ about you again Bartles 😀 has thrown them for a loop er all bets are off!

    >

    Can one imagine how totally pissed off die hard, Bartles, Reps were both before and after Obama’s election when the MSM were gloating 24/7 about said bi-racial, African/America candidate being elected in a country which has a 300/400 year history of racial oppression and that (((possibly))) America had turned a corner re: race relations!

    OK, no one can image that much hatred/loathing/disgust lol as not so fast w/the America turnin’ the corner crap pundits when Obama’s election had a negative effect on many American racists who now felt free to “come out of the closet” ie Bart’s teabaggers.

    Bottom line, Obama’s election has driven many wingers :::Bart::: off the deep end!

    >

    Did I mention Bart is a …

    btw, we need more pundits!

  159. mclever says:

    Mule,

    I understand the desire to say, “you guys do it, too!” And, I admit that there are those on the left who sometimes engage in overblown, overwrought rhetoric, but there’s a matter of scale and perspective.

    Do you have quotes (in clear context) of Joe Biden advocating for violence or inciting hate? Contrast that with some of the things that Sarah Palin has repeated on several occasions. And, when those quotes start making the media rounds, she doesn’t apologize or retract, she reiterates!

    Do you have substantial and overwhelming quantities of incendiary quotes from a liberal media personage with the stature of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Ann Coulter? Not just a few quotes from pissant radio hosts who might reach a hundred listeners, but numerous repeated quotes that were greeted with adulation and applause by thousands of supporters. And not just oblique phrasing that happens to use the word “target” or “enemy”, but overt calls for revolution and violence. If you peruse a week’s archive of Limbaugh’s show, you can find a dozen examples easily. You’ll have to dig deeper to find similar levels from the top left media personages. (Not that you won’t find some execrable bloviations, but the quantity and pervasiveness is not at the same level.)

    I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but there’s a matter of scope and scale and the way others on that “side” react. I saw the thunderous applause that Sarah Palin would get when she’d talk about “reloading” or “take ’em down.” When a Keith Olbermann or Mike Malloy crosses the line into escalatory speech, they are generally roundly criticized and condemned by most liberals. In contrast, Sarah is elevated, praised, and nominated for VP!

  160. Mr. Universe says:

    Some Cereal Box Top Professor said,

    I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America’s political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

    We’re actually not feeling too desperate. Republicans are doing a fine job of imploding without our help. I’m a little bothered by the lies about health care reform taking a foothold amongst the gullible. But let’s face it; reform is here to stay. Every Republican in Congress knows it, too. The sooner they get over it and start working to improve it the better.

    And I am already tired of this meme that ‘the people’ rejected the Dems in November blah,blah,blah. They rejected everybody because the economy sucked and Washington is pretty broken. Now we have to endure the endless ‘job killing’ meme since the Republicans don’t have a plan for job creation. Better blame it on the Obama administration. Nevermind that jobs plummeted under dubya. People want change. So does Obama. I think he’ll deliver.

    So I understand the desperation that Republicans must feel. Your days are numbered.

  161. mclever says:

    @ shortchain

    All that is necessary is that we agree to settle our differences at the ballot box and through discussion and debate, not violence.

    Agreed! 🙂

  162. Bart DePalma says:

    Mono: No one — let me emphasize — no one — not a single freakin’ person — on this thread is drawing a causative link between what Sharron Angle said, or what Sarah Palin posted, or anything else in the batshit crazy right wing world of words and images, and the events in Tucson Saturday. No one. Nobody. No causal link.

    If by causal link you mean evidence of causation, I agree no one here has offered any.

    If by causal link you mean a claim of causation, the two threads on this subject are filled with such claims.

    What we are saying, if you care to listen, is that by creating a toxic stew of violent and evil imagery in order to scare voters, that candidates on the Right Wing Nut Job end of the spectrum have inadvertently and incrementally increased the probability that someone with an unstable mental state will commit an act of violence.

    That is what you have been saying, which although it is at the low end of the volume here, has absolutely no factual basis.

  163. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ If by causal link you mean evidence of causation, I agree no one here has offered any.

    If by causal link you mean a claim of causation, the two threads on this subject are filled with such claims.
    ~~~~~

    Bart, you are the minutiae king ~ congrats!

  164. Bart DePalma says:

    U: And I am already tired of this meme that ‘the people’ rejected the Dems in November blah,blah,blah. They rejected everybody because the economy sucked and Washington is pretty broken.

    After the once in a century asswhipping, I can understand why you are tired of being reminded of it.

    However, if the voters were punishing everyone, they would have fired GOP incumbents at the same proportion as their seats in Congress. In fact, the voters fired 3-4 GOP house members and no GOP senate members, while firing 66-67 House Dems and 6 Dem Senators. If a Dem incumbent in anything remotely resembling a competitive district voted for the Porkulus and/or Obamacare, the voters nearly always fired them.

    Repudiations do not get much clearer.

  165. GROG says:

    @Monotreme said: No one — let me emphasize — no one — not a single freakin’ person — on this thread is drawing a causative link between what Sharron Angle said…..

    Mr. U stated above that Sharon Angle is complicit in the shootings. In his post his first reaction could have been to extend sympathy to the families or condemn the actions of the shooter, but it wasn’t. His first reaction was to blame Sharon Angle. And it’s that kind of rhetoric that’s going to get people even more riled up.

    If you’re going to play the blame game, let’s be fair.

    Was it these that “increased the probability of the shooting”:

    • Palin’s crosshairs remarks
    • Angle’s “2nd amendment remedies” remark

    Or did these “increase the probability of the shooting”:

    • His pot smoking habit
    • His atheist beliefs
    • His belief that the US government planned and executed the vents of 9/11
    • The Daily Kos saying Giffords is “Dead to me. Dead to me. Dead to me” (said on 1/6/11 which has mysteriously disappeared from the site yesterday)
    • His obsession with conspiracy theories
    • The left’s use of targets on political maps
    • The left’s use of language like “Behind enemy lines” and “targeting”
    • Obama saying he takes a gun to a knife fight
    • 8 years of “Kill Bush” rhetoric at leftwing political rallies
    • Van Jones’ belief “that evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.”
    • Actions by leftwing terrorists like William Ayers
    • Comments on New Years Eve by leftist Frances Pevin http://www.theblaze.com/stories/frances-fox-piven-rings-in-the-new-year-by-calling-for-violent-revolution/

    The answer of course is NO. None of these had anything to do with the shooting. The fact that he’s a deranged lunatic had everything to do with it. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise.

  166. shiloh says:

    Bart, as your whole life revolves around wingers/teabaggers ruling the world, you are allowed to enjoy the 2010 mid-terms, really!

    but, but, but be careful what you wish for as boehner is now the face of Rep leadership! Again, good luck w/that.

    btw, Obama is still president and Dutch is still dead …

    take care

  167. Bart DePalma says:

    Loughner apparently was fixated with Giffords for years after she declined to answer an insane question to Loughner’s satisfaction:

    Tierney, who’s also 22, recalls Loughner complaining about a Giffords event he attended during that period. 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?'”

    “He said, ‘Can you believe it, they wouldn’t answer my question.’ Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her.”

    Giffords’ answer, whatever it was, didn’t satisfy Loughner. “He said, ‘Can you believe it, they wouldn’t answer my question,’ and I told him, ‘Dude, no one’s going to answer that,'” Tierney recalls. “Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her.”

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=1

  168. Bart DePalma says:

    Anyone want to retract their blood libels yet?

  169. shiloh says:

    Let the record show Bartles has not disagreed that he’s a flat out racist!

    … and the truth shall set you free, Asswipe!

    btw Bartles, retracting the truth will not change your 24/7 538 bigotry/obsession w/Obama.

    solo estoy diciendo

    take care

  170. Mr. Universe says:

    @GROG

    Yes, I am am on record as stating that Angle potentially is complicit in this for her second amendment remarks. Although I merely asked the question initially. If you want to ding ‘Treme for that; fine. It’s possible he didn’t read all my comments and he’s a very prickly echidna and can take care of himself. I’ve commented further on another thread so it’s possible you haven’t read all my comments either. And it appears more likely that you haven’t checked in on the media coverage of this because it appears I’m not alone on this line of thought.

    On several occasions I have called for sympathy for the families. I’ve also called for people not to jump to conclusions until the facts are in. And I’ll state here that (paraphrasing busboy) that stupidity has no political affiliation. If you want to cherry pick my statements apart, have at it. If my statements make you feel a little uncomfortable…well, that sort of speaks volumes by itself, doesn’t it?

  171. Mule Rider says:

    “Do you have quotes (in clear context) of Joe Biden advocating for violence or inciting hate? Contrast that with some of the things that Sarah Palin has repeated on several occasions. And, when those quotes start making the media rounds, she doesn’t apologize or retract, she reiterates!”

    Let me be the first to say that much of what Sarah Palin utters is indefensible. Now that that’s out of the way, let’s not forget our current President – Mr. Obama himself – is on the record referring to his political opponents as “enemies,” has talked about bringing a gun to a knife fight, and denigrated many Americans by claiming they were bitter and clung to God, guns, religion, etc. That can be interpreted as pretty divisive and hateful, even if it falls just short of being incendiary or an outright call to violence.

    “Do you have substantial and overwhelming quantities of incendiary quotes from a liberal media personage with the stature of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Ann Coulter? Not just a few quotes from pissant radio hosts who might reach a hundred listeners, but numerous repeated quotes that were greeted with adulation and applause by thousands of supporters.”

    http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/uploads/RealRadioHatemongers.pdf

    And that ignores plenty of other quotes from the likes of Joy Behar, Bill Maher, and Rosie O’Donnell…

    And don’t let the size of the audience – or lack thereof – be an excuse. Even if it just reaches a “few hundred” listeners, if some of them are crazy enough and allow themselves to believe the rhetoric, they could just as easily carry out what happened in Tucson in spades…

    “And not just oblique phrasing that happens to use the word “target” or “enemy”, but overt calls for revolution and violence.”

    C’mon mclever, you’re better than this? So conservatives/the Right are held to a different standard? When it’s a conservative that uses “oblique phrasing” with such words as “target” or “enemy” it’s easily stretched into an overt call for revolution and violence, but when it’s someone from the left, it has to be, what, like nine different shades of “overt”?

    “If you peruse a week’s archive of Limbaugh’s show, you can find a dozen examples easily.”

    Really? Got a link to all of those? Seeing as how Limbaugh’s been on the air for, what, 20 years or so, and there’s roughly 50 weeks in a year, we ought to have about 12,000 or more examples of Limbaugh calling for violence or armed rebellion, right? Do you seriously believe that? I bet you’d be hard-pressed to find more than a handful, at most. Granted, he is an insensitive jerk and can say some very ugly things, but I don’t think I’ve heard him quoted toeing the “armed insurrection” line.

    “You’ll have to dig deeper to find similar levels from the top left media personages. (Not that you won’t find some execrable bloviations, but the quantity and pervasiveness is not at the same level.)”

    I don’t have to dig very deep to find some very ugly things from the likes of Behar, Malloy, Schultz, O’Donnell, and Maher…and many are just as nasty, hate-filled, incendiary, and on the cusp of appealing to violence as anything you’ll hear from the Right. I also think you underestimate the “pervasiveness” and “quantity” of snark, ridicule, and mocking from people like Olbermann and Maddow who, while their remarks might not quite rise to the level if hate to actually incite violence, it’s no less damaging to the state of political discourse and only encourages division. I don’t watch either one regularly and haven’t them in a while, but I’ve seen multiple hour-long episodes of both The O’Reilly Factor and Countdown with Keith Olbermann. One thing I notice is that O’Reilly, while he is certainly over-the-top on occasion and has said some regrettable things that rise to the level we’re condemning here, they’re very infrequent and much of the show is spent with a very apolitical tone. That’s simply not the case with Olbermann. While, at his worst, he may not top the level of crassness from O’Reilly, Hannity, or some other commentators, he does try to spend the entire hour – or as much of it as possible – slamming, mocking, deriding, belittling conservatives. So what that his language doesn’t invoke violent imagery directly. He’s still BULLYING. And a relentless stream of it from him (or Maddow or anyone else) is just as much or more damaging as one comment about “second amendment remedies” or crap like that.

    Put it another way. You’re the parent of a 12-year old boy. He goes to school one day, and another (bigger/stronger/meaner) student tells him, “I just might bring a knife to school and cut you up, you little worthless brat!” It’s very scary but it’s an isolated incident. The bully doesn’t make the threat again – and no one else heard him the first time except your son so the school is hard-pressed to take action – but you still think it’s best to remove him from that school.

    So you take him out of school and put him in another one. There he encounters another bully. Except this one doesn’t talk about cutting him with a knife. He calls him “stupid” and “worthless” and “moron” and all kinds of other crap and does it on a daily basis. Every single day the insults fly.

    Now, I ask the question: is your son any better off being tormented daily with “less-violent” but still denigrating rhetoric? Or with just one or two isolated threats of violence? I’d argue that neither is good and both are very disturbing – a no-win situation if you will – but I’d posit that the daily bullying with “less-violent” rhetoric really isn’t more pleasant, constructive, etc. and may actually be more damaging to your son than the other (assuming that kid doesn’t actually bring a knife and cut him).

    “I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but there’s a matter of scope and scale and the way others on that “side” react. I saw the thunderous applause that Sarah Palin would get when she’d talk about “reloading” or “take ‘em down.” When a Keith Olbermann or Mike Malloy crosses the line into escalatory speech, they are generally roundly criticized and condemned by most liberals. In contrast, Sarah is elevated, praised, and nominated for VP!””

    I think I covered this plenty well above. You decide what you think is best/right.

  172. Mr. Universe says:

    Really? Got a link to all of those?

    Yes. Turn the damn radio on.

  173. shortchain says:

    Well, that settles it. Bart has found some evidence, however obtained and however unclear, that, in his mind, settled the issue, so we are all now supposed to retract everything.

    Take a look at the narcissism thread and make up your own mind.

    As (relatively) sane people we cannot know what made this person snap. It may have been a long time coming, but what was the proximate cause? And did the toxic stew of right-wing imagery and extremist speech by those on the right tip the situation over?

    We cannot know. But we can be pretty sure it didn’t help.

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    Bart advocates, apparently, doing nothing, not calling out the right for their irresponsible actions and speech.

    Let’s take this opportunity to castigate those whose rhetoric or actions justify, excuse, or promote the use of violence. That way, perhaps some positive result can be extracted from tragedy.

  174. shortchain says:

    PS, MR,

    Who was it who called for violence against Bush? Where was it received with approval?

    And I did mention, upthread, that I did not approve of that at the time, nor did I support anyone who did.

    How far back do we have to go to satisfy the “tu quoque”, folks?

  175. Eusebio Dunkle says:

    “It’s a question of utility. ”

    Deterrence constitutes a valid utility for the private ownership of powerful weapons when a government is demonstrably corrupt. (e.g. targets citizens for assassination, illegally detains & tortures citizens, continually violates its own constitution, etc.) We might disagree on the status of the USG, but the point remains. What recourse do I have against my assassination or indefinite detention [by a corrupt, lawless government] if I’m only “permitted” to defend myself with inferior arms? Am I supposed to lay down and accept my fate in the hands of a corrupt and lawless DOJ? Nope, instead of protections I preemptively acquiesce from a state of fear and things get worse.

    The USG possesses the same weapons you think are inappropriate (rpgs, bombs, etc) for the same reason you think is inappropriate (mass damage/causality). It also has a long and disturbing record of abusing these weapons for nefarious ends such as blackmail, inciting fear and terror, inflicting massive civilian casualties, or simply to maim and injure large quantities of opponents and their families. I don’t have a record of abusing my power, hurting other people or threatening violence, ever. Yet, I face prohibitions? Take a guess which side I take in Iran’s nuclear struggles…

  176. Bart DePalma says:

    SC:

    You have no evidence whatsoever for your blood libels accusing conservative speakers of causing political murders. None.

    Grog and I have been posting the actual evidence as it becomes public and none of it supports your blood libels. Instead, the shooter appears to be an insane young man who also happens to have leftist politics.

    Do you people have any shame whatsoever?

    Falsely accusing someone of inciting murder is not acceptable behavior under any circumstances.

  177. Mule Rider says:

    “Yes. Turn the damn radio on.”

    Unacceptable. I’m not the one who made the accusation. Mclever did. The burden of proof is on him – or you, since you seem to want to defend the comment. I don’t listen to Limbaugh and don’t intend to start, so why don’t you guys provide the examples – I mean, it was mentioned that you should be able to easily find dozens in the archives or his show, after all – instead of telling me what to do with my radio.

    Put up or shut up. You know dang sure how you’d react if I made a similar comment about a left-wing commentator and responded to a demand for proof with “turn the damn radio/TV on.”

    It doesn’t fly for you and it’s not going to fly for me. Again, put up or shut up.

  178. shiloh says:

    Mclever is a she.

    and Bartles when you go on one of your disingenuous, inane, hyperbolic rampages, it just makes you look like a raging fool, Asswipe!

    Again, who are you trying to convince here, Asswipe!

    take care

  179. Mule Rider says:

    “Who was it who called for violence against Bush? Where was it received with approval?”

    There were activist circles, and they all spread that hatred with their own self-approval, not with any (or very much) approval from mainstream liberal/progressive organizations. Just like the only people who think what happened in Tucson are part of some fanatical fringe who mainstream conservative circles have nothing to do with and have clearly denounced.

    “And I did mention, upthread, that I did not approve of that at the time, nor did I support anyone who did.”

    And we’ve mentioned numerous times how shocking and tragic the Tucson shootings were and that we don’t approve of any kind of violence or calls to violence in our political discourse.

    “How far back do we have to go to satisfy the “tu quoque”, folks?”

    And how much apologizing and distancing from classless remarks from fellow conservatives do we have to do? Seriously, you guys are just as bad as you accuse us of being with the (moderate) Muslim community over 9/11. The accusation is that they have never done enough apologizing for and denouncing of the attacks and distancing from the extremist fring to satisfy conservatives.

    Now the shoe is on the other foot. We have a tragedy and it’s rightly and roundly condemend. Many of us also distance ourselves from the disturbing rhetoric that comes from the mouths of people like Palin and Angle and it’s still not enough. It can’t be enough because you guys need a scapegoat. You need to be able to talk about “crazy, unhinged right-wing killer nutjobs terrorizing the country with threats of violence and political bullying and fear-mongering.” Without those partisan political points and fear-mongering all your own, people see just how weak and hollow the leftist mindset really is.

  180. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    Do, please, quote me when you accuse me of saying something. Else, how can everybody see how I said what you claim?

    If you cannot quote me, do feel free to apologize for what, ironically enough, is libel.

    MR,

    I expected names and specific charges, not generalities. I can see, from a distance of under a week, evidence of people still posting on this thread speaking approvingly of Sarah Palin as a presidential candidate in 2012. They have not repudiated her for her objectionable speech and material. That you recall “activist circles” means nothing to me. Point it out when it happens next time.

  181. mclever says:

    Mule Rider,

    As I said, there exist some examples on the left, but they lack the pervasiveness and persistence (and cheerleading) that’s been happening on the right for the past couple of years. (BTW, reaching for the “cling to” comment from Obama shows just how sparse the number of incendiary comments are. The context of that quote was in no way meant to escalate violence.)

    I hold politicians and commentators of all stripes accountable when they say something that crosses the line into incendiary. I have written the necessary harsh chastisement to Keith Olbermann when he crossed the line. I won’t listen to Mike Malloy because he crosses the line too often, and I expect that his relatively low listener ratings (compared to other liberal commentators) are because most liberals reject that sort of speech. I won’t listen to Limbaugh any more, because I got sick of his fear-mongering and hyperbolic histrionics. When I first started listening to him back in the late 80’s, I thought he was kidding (a parody ala Steven Colbert), but as his shtick has escalated, I no longer thought it’s funny. I hear enough of his rants repeated by my dittohead parents…

    Yes, some of the statements made during the Bush years were appalling. But context matters. How were those comments received? How were they propagated? Were they cheered by mainstream, highly-ranked Democrats? Or, were they dismissed as crazy, even by the left? (Hint: the latter.)

    And that is what has been most disturbing of the recent incendiary political atmosphere. When Palin makes comments about reloading and taking ’em down, other Republican leaders cheer her on. She gets more media exposure, more political donations. She’s not marginalized or chastised. When Angle makes remarks about “second amendment remedies”, she’s just one more voice in a loud, angry, incendiary swirl. These to women are by no means the only ones.

    So, while I sincerely doubt that either Palin’s or Angle’s words are directly responsible for the shooting, I do think they (and other commentators on the right) have perpetuated an environment that implies that such violent acts are necessary and good. It’s hard to turn on the TV or radio and not hear of some new, outlandish comment made by someone in the public sphere that suggests violence against our duly elected government. Whether this atmosphere of hate had a direct impact on this particular shooter is irrelevant. In my opinion, the shooting shows how close the tinderbox is to igniting, and why it’s a good idea for everyone (including those on the left) to put their matches away.

  182. mclever says:

    mclever doesn’t care if someone guesses the wrong gender in an online forum.

    🙂

    If you were to meet me in person, on the other hand!

    😉

  183. Mule Rider says:

    “BTW, reaching for the “cling to” comment from Obama shows just how sparse the number of incendiary comments are.”

    No, they’re not “sparse” as you suggest. They’re plentiful. I just picked that one because he’s our Commander-in-Chief. And he’s held to a very high standard regarding political rhetoric. Moreso than Palin because he actually holds elected office, the highest in the land.

    “The context of that quote was in no way meant to escalate violence.”

    Intent is irrelevant. Or, if you will, let’s excuse Palin’s “target” comments and Angle’s “second amendment remedies” comment because I’m almost sure they didn’t mean to escalate violence.

    Regardless of how Obama meant it, it was very divisive, hateful, and condescending.

    Just like how Palin probably meant that winning certain congressional districts should be a very high priority/goal (i.e. a target) but didn’t want people putting a literal bullseye on those running for office.

  184. mostlyilurk says:

    Bart,
    Nobody is seriously accusing someone of inciting murder. What reasonable people are saying is that, in light of the fact that Gabrielle Giffords was shot and almost killed and in light of the fact that six other innocent people (included a NINE YEAR OLD CHILD) were shot and killed perhaps it was not the best idea for the former vice-presidential candidate of a major political party to have put out an advertisement showing Gabrielle Giffords as the intended target of a firearm and stating, with regard to that target, that people should reload rather than retreat. Good g-d, do you really not see what you and ilk are defending? Really? Innocent people were killed. Sarah Palin has a daughter almost the same age as the little girl who died on Saturday. Surely, she feels remorse – how could anyone with a soul not?

  185. Mule Rider says:

    mclever,

    First of all, sorry about the he/she confusion. Guess I’d always just assumed…now I know….

    Anyway, I’d be interested to hear your take on my analogy of child bullying above? Having your son (or it could be daughter) get one or two direct/overt threats of violence that are few and far between or get the relentless stream of belittling, condescension, etc. that we seem to get from many on the left. Has Olbermann or Maddow ever said anything quite as incendiary or used imagery that could be potentially violent? Not that I’m aware of, although the jury is out on Olbermann and some of his histrionics. Has Beck or O’Reilly used that language? Possibly, and I can see where a few comments of theirs have crossed the line, and they’re despicable and should be denounced….but are very few and far between. You have a few isolated examples from time to time. As I said above, I’ve found them to often be apolitical (at least in the past) if I’ve taken the time to listen to them for more than 5 minutes.

    On the other hand, if/when I watch Olbermann and Maddow, it’s a relentless one-hour stream of conservative-belittling. Sure, they stop just short of rising to the kind of incendiary peak that Beck and O’Reilly occasionally hit, but they just keep coming with the same crap. Over and over again. Day after day after day.

    One hundred comments calling people “ignorant,” “racists,” “bigots,” “morons,” “rednecks,” “teabaggers,” “stupid,” etc. is as much or more destructive that one comment about “2nd amendment remedies.”

    Oh, I forgot to add Paul Krugman and Jeneane Garofalo to the list of people who’ve made some outlandish, hate-filled quotes.

  186. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    MR said “Intent is irrelevant. Or, if you will, let’s excuse Palin’s “target” comments and Angle’s “second amendment remedies” comment because I’m almost sure they didn’t mean to escalate violence.

    And I’m “almost sure” that you don’t sound like a pedantic ass.

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

    Just because Henry II DIDN’T say “Somebody kill Thomas Beckett.”, I guess that means he didn’t mean to escalate violence?

  187. Mule Rider said: one or two direct/overt threats of violence that are few and far between or get the relentless stream of belittling, condescension

    Are you trying to say that the 24 hour pundit stream coming from fox is not a “relentless stream of belittling, condescension… etc”. Your analogy would only ring true if this was an isolated incident. It’s not and therefore your analogy does nothing to further your point.

  188. shiloh says:

    mclever doesn’t care if someone guesses the wrong gender in an online forum.

    I know you didn’t care, but it’s always nice to know said person’s gender on the net even though it may not be personal. Believe you mentioned that you use mclever so folks won’t assume you’re a female.

    and speaking of personal lol at 538 we have males, females and Bartles who falls in a category all his own 😉 narcissism notwithstanding …

  189. drfunguy says:

    @Bart
    “Anyone want to retract their blood libels yet?”
    Have you stopped beating your wife lately?
    Seriously I have no idea what you mean by blood libel.
    If you are actually attempting to communicate here you need to provide specific quotes.

  190. Bart DePalma says:

    mostlyilurk says: Bart, Nobody is seriously accusing someone of inciting murder.

    But, let me unseriously(?) accuse Sarah Palin without evidence of inciting the murder of a child:

    What reasonable people are saying is that, in light of the fact that Gabrielle Giffords was shot and almost killed and in light of the fact that six other innocent people (included a NINE YEAR OLD CHILD) were shot and killed perhaps it was not the best idea for the former vice-presidential candidate of a major political party to have put out an advertisement showing Gabrielle Giffords as the intended target of a firearm and stating, with regard to that target, that people should reload rather than retreat.

    And yet you offer no evidence whatsoever that the shooter knows Sarah Palin, saw the post in question and was influenced by the post to the slightest degree to carry out his murders.

    In fact, the evidence suggests that the shooter was fixated on the congress woman prior to the Palin post for failing to answer a nonsensical question during a meet and greet.

    Withdraw your defamatory statement if you have any honor at all.

  191. drfunguy says:

    @MR and Grog
    Still waiting for examples of high profile left wing spokes people who make statements on a par with Coulter’s wish that McVeigh had bombed the NYTimes or Gordon Liddy’s call for ‘head shots’ to federal law enforcement.
    That some people make reprehensible call for violence is terrible.
    I reject all of them. That conservative pundits do so regularly and are not admonished (but are actually cheered or given awards [Liddy]) is truly disgusting.

  192. drfunguy says:

    Let the record show the Bart is incapable of distinguishing “perhaps it was not the best idea” from as accusation of accomplice to murder.

  193. mclever says:

    Mule Rider,

    As I said, I don’t care whether one thinks I’m male or female, as long as one is reasonable when considering the points I try to make. 🙂

    I’ve thought about your bullying example, and I shall try to explain why I don’t think it captures the true picture. With schoolkids, I totally agree that verbal bullying can be as emotionally destructive as physical bullying, but that is largely because of the isolation and disempowerment of the victim. Your example is too specific and contrived to draw the parallels to the political arena.

    First of all, bullying involves an inequal power relationship. An older, bigger, meaner kid picks on a relatively weaker victim. But neither Republicans nor Democrats are victims in a political debate between the two major parties. (We could argue that the major parties bully the Greens and Constitutionalists, but that’s a separate matter.) If anything, the two parties “bully” each other in equal measure. Whoever manages to get control of the media spin “wins”, and it can be very easily argued that the Republicans have been the media spin-masters since the mid-90’s, because they’ve largely been the ones driving the media narrative of late, turning terms like “liberal” or “educated” into pejoratives. So, I don’t buy the argument that Rachel Maddow is “bullying” Republicans to the point where violence (or the implication of violence) would be an appropriate or equal rejoinder.

    Second of all, in your example, the threat of violence was unproven and secretive. In our current political arena, Fox correspondents, radio hosts, and Republican politicians have been basically doing the equivalent of a bully shouting in the lunchroom that it would be a good idea if someone “took down” the class nerd. Everyone heard it, and a third of the lunchroom applauded vigorously. A few timid voices suggested that such talk was inappropriate, but they were mostly ignored. A few bolder voices suggested that the bully was stupid or crazy, but they were also dismissed as being overly critical or bigoted against the bully. If someone not in the bully’s crowd later takes a pot-shot at the nerd for obscure reasons, it’s still reasonable to assert that the bully’s public comments contributed to the atmosphere that led the perpetrator to think such action was appropriate.

    Furthermore, it is considered acceptable political form to engage in verbal sparring with one’s opponent. Making derogatory or belittling remarks is par for the course, and isn’t considered bullying, though it is poor form. Both sides do this in equal measure, and there would probably be a healthy debate about which side is better at it. (Usually, one who resorts to overt insults loses, while the wittier one wins.) If you replace conservative with liberal, your description of listening to Maddow or Olbermann is how I feel when I watch/listen to any Fox show. I would suggest that our political proclivities color our perceptions in that regard.

    In political debate, the implication of violence pushes the line, and actual threats to throwing of fists (or drawing of swords or pistols) definitely crosses it. It doesn’t matter if it happens once or a dozen times, it’s just wrong and counter to the collaborative form of government that our nation represents to the world. Violent political speech isn’t the same as a schoolyard bully secretly threatening with knife or fist. See my above counter-example…

  194. Mule Rider says:

    “Are you trying to say that the 24 hour pundit stream coming from fox is not a “relentless stream of belittling, condescension… etc”. ”

    I don’t watch Fox that often, but I know for a fact it’s not a 24-hour stream of “belittling, condescension, etc.” To suggest otherwise would be one of the more intellectually dishonest things I’ve seen out of you, dc, and that’s saying a lot. Much of what they report is apolitical and is simply “news of the day,” and the same can be said for CNN, MSNBC, etc. What I’m saying is that Olbermann and Maddow are two 1-hour streams of belittling and condescension.

    “Your analogy would only ring true if this was an isolated incident. It’s not and therefore your analogy does nothing to further your point.”

    So you are suggesting Fox is putting out condescension/snark/belittling 24/7?

    Don’t know why I’m acting shocked at your so one-sided, delusional, and biased view of the world. I should actually be shocked when/if you put forth a balanced viewpoint.

  195. Bart DePalma says:

    drfunion:

    You can’t walk this back to an innuendo and skate away.

    There is no evidence to back up the outright claims and insinuations that Palin or any other conservative directly or indirectly caused or played any part in these murders.

    Either withdraw the claims and innuendo entirely or stand indicted by your own words of blood libel.

  196. drfunguy says:

    Barf
    What blood libel? Please be specific.
    You have shown yourself incapable of distinguishing “perhaps it was not the best idea” from an accusation of accomplice to murder. I cannot predict what phrase you might perceive as libel since you display neither logic nor rationality.

  197. Mr. Universe says:

    One hundred comments calling people “ignorant,” “racists,” “bigots,” “morons,” “rednecks,” “teabaggers,” “stupid,” etc. is as much or more destructive that one comment about “2nd amendment remedies.”

    Yes, because calling people idiots as opposed to suggesting to your constituency that they be shot because they don’t share the same beliefs are exactly the same. /sarcasm Whaaaatever, dude. Do you read your posts before posting them? Are you high when you post?

    And Limbaugh’s provocative statements have been well documented by plenty of others already. I really have nothing to prove to you anyway. I’m getting ready to watch my Ducks hand Auburn their asses.

  198. shiloh says:

    drfun, Bart’s only here as winger troll who gets to shout above the crowd at a progressive blog daily ~ nothing more, nothing less.

    >

    re: the intense liberal hatred for cheney/bush:

    no excuses, rationalizations which Bartles gives us 24/7 re: his beloved teabaggers, etc. just the why’s and wherefore’s …

    Although I have never hated any American politician, even Nixon, ’cause to hate someone takes a lot of effort and one becomes consumed by the process ie Bartles/Obama and have never felt any one person is worth that kind of effort er wasted time. But indeed, many liberals do/did hate cheney/bush for a variety of reasons, not least of which is their getting (47.9%) of the vote in 2000 and the SC appointed them president. btw, although I don’t hate them, I do enjoy makin’ fun of them, eh.

    So in a word, cheney/bush got off to a bad start as Bart would say ~ “we the people” er the will of the people went for naught in 2000 and then our fav silver spoon pres benefited from being asleep at the wheel on 9/11 as his job approval went to 90% and he squandered this good will by unilaterally attacking Iraq unprovoked because Saddam Hussein said some bad things about his daddy yada yada yada

    Long story short:

    Constitutional violations
    Gap between rich and poor widened exponentially
    Katrina
    Harriet Miers
    Port Security
    Mission accomplished
    Abu Ghraib
    Blackwater
    Valerie Plame
    Scooter Libby
    turdblossom
    Total economic collapse where the super rich on Wall St. were not affected.
    Pandering to conservative religious groups
    Dropping the ball in Afghanistan
    Makin’ inane jokes about not finding bin Laden
    $15 billion Iraqi funds unaccounted for …
    Freedom fries
    You’re either w/us or against us
    Tippecanoe and Tyler Too ~ ok, I digress 😉

    And speaking of free speech, whenever cheney/bush were at a rally or fund raiser or whatever, protesters were not allowed as the FBI threw out all undesirables.

    and feel free to expand my list, if I forgot anything!

    So yea, the cheney/bush hatred was palpable at the last political forum I frequented as U.S. soldiers were dying needlessly in Iraq!

    Again these are not excuses, but valid reasons why many, even some Reps, gasp!, consider cheney/bush the scum of the earth!

    I yield back the balance of my time …

    apologies to scum of the earth

  199. Mr. Universe says:

    What the heck is blood libel? I don’t get memos from Limbaugh land. I did just read that Limbaugh devoted his entire show to rejecting the theme of this (and many other) articles.

  200. shiloh says:

    Bartles would you please withdraw yourself from humanity!

    TIA

    oh I’m sorry as you did that some time ago …

  201. Bartbuster says:

    Blankshot, as someone who still tries to claim that we found WMD in Iraq, you’re not really in a position to be whining like a little bitch about “blood libel”, whatever the hell that is.

  202. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    I find it hilarious that Bart DeLiar, after all of his hit and run tactics and just not responding to requests for proofs, is totally floundering around trying to get someone to prove a contention.

    Damn, Fart, what comes around goes around, don’t it?

    Bless his heart!

  203. Mr. Universe says:

    shiloh breaks the 200 barrier. Wonder if Charles will show up?

  204. MR, that wasn’t DC that posted it, it was me.

    There are only a few hours each day that are actually considered ‘news’ on Fox. By their own admission only between the hours of 11 and 3 are ‘news’ and the rest are opinion shows filled with vitriol, name calling, and many times bold faced lies.

    Are you seriously trying to debate that 2 hours of Maddow and Olberman somehow equate to over a dozen hours each day of Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc.. that’s found on Fox? You can’t be serious.

  205. I also never claimed that Fox was 24/7 condescension, I said it was a 24/7 pundit stream filled with condescension and non-stop belittling of anything progressive or liberal, what you claim the left is doing w/out any real proof or acknowledgment that Fox doing this at all.

  206. Mule Rider says:

    “Yes, because calling people idiots as opposed to suggesting to your constituency that they be shot because they don’t share the same beliefs are exactly the same. /sarcasm”

    First of all, nobody in a position of authority (Palin, Angle, et al) “suggested” anyone shoot anybody. So that’s a bald-faced lie. They used metaphorical references to guns, and those were inappropriate. But they were also just a handful of instances, and they didn’t mean any harm by them. When Krugman, Garofalo, Maher, Behar, O’Donnell, Maddow unload their relentless snark, they may not invoke violent imagery, but you can bet your sweet bottom that they’re trying to pick a fight and cause mental and emotional harm. I laid a well thought-out argument/analogy explaining this above with a bullied kid. I wouldn’t want my kid threatened/bullied under any circumstance, but I think I’d almost rather him/her receive one or two veiled threats of violence than a relentless stream of insults calling him/her an idiot/moron/d-bag/etc. Weren’t you lefties all indignant over the homosexuals who committed suicide recently because of the constant harrassment over their sexual orientation? Funny you seem to think that it’s okay to be tormented in a similar fashion because of political beliefs. No, not funny. Grossly hypocritical.

    “Whaaaatever, dude. Do you read your posts before posting them? Are you high when you post?”

    No, I’m quite sober.

    “And Limbaugh’s provocative statements have been well documented by plenty of others already.”

    Yeah, I’ve seen some of his insensitive quotes. What I’m asking for is the dozens of instances where he’s subtly – or not so subtly – called for armed resistance as you and mclever insinuated. I haven’t seen those. So if you’re going to convince me, you need to do a little dirty work and not try and rest on nothing but “truth by assertion.”

    “I really have nothing to prove to you anyway.”

    Don’t prove it. I could care less. But don’t make unsubstantiated claims. You can put me in place in here because you’re the big, bad, scary blog administrator, but making such unbacked assertions elsewhere will get you laughed out of the room.

    “I’m getting ready to watch my Ducks hand Auburn their asses.”

    This we can agree on.

  207. GROG says:

    mclever said: As I said, there exist some examples on the left, but they lack the pervasiveness and persistence (and cheerleading) that’s been happening on the right for the past couple of years.

    Says who? The Huff Post? Dagblog? MSNBC? Jon Stewart? That’s you opinion that has no evidence to back it up. None.

    Keith Olberman to Sarah Palin: “Madam, you are a clear and present danger to the safety and security of this nation.”

    What if a crazed lunatic, like say a Jared Loughner, really thought Palin was a clear and present danger to the safety and security of this nation? And that crazed lunatic justified Palin’s asasanation because he heard Olberman say she’s a danger to the nation.

    You don’t get anymore vitriolic and hateful rhetoric than that. The left needs to stop this hate speech now. Palin and her family are in danger because of remarks like that.

  208. shortchain says:

    MR,

    It’s interesting that you equate having the truth pointed out as equivalent to bullying.

    I guess everybody should humor everyone else’s beliefs, or be accused of “bullying”.

  209. Mule Rider says:

    “There are only a few hours each day that are actually considered ‘news’ on Fox. By their own admission only between the hours of 11 and 3 are ‘news’ and the rest are opinion shows filled with vitriol, name calling, and many times bold faced lies.

    Are you seriously trying to debate that 2 hours of Maddow and Olberman somehow equate to over a dozen hours each day of Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc.. that’s found on Fox? You can’t be serious.”

    Are you trying to deny that the rest of MSNBC’s programming is tilted as much left as Fox’s programming is right? You can’t be serious.

    Look, MSNBC’s all but claimed that their sole reason for existence is to try and outdo Fox but from a left-wing perspective. They’re the mirror image of everything Fox. Three hours of right-wing op-ed news coverage? Check. O’Reilly, Beck, and Hannity. Three hours of left-wing op-ed news coverage? Check. Schultz, Olbermann, and Maddow. For Greta van Susteren, there’s Chris Matthews. Shepard Smith…meet Dylan Ratigan. Fox & Friends. Morning Joe. And with a little actual “news” sprinkled in between. Fox generally with a conservative lean and MSNBC with a liberal lean….although it’s surprising how often they’re both apolitical and not pushing agenda, contrary to accusations at each from both sides.

    “I also never claimed that Fox was 24/7 condescension, I said it was a 24/7 pundit stream filled with condescension and non-stop belittling of anything progressive or liberal,”

    I challenge you to back that up with facts. Again, I don’t disagree that you’ll hear some over-the-top crap from BillO, Beck, and Hannity, and from what I understand, Cavuto, the Fox & Friends gang, and other can also lob some conservative-leaning bombs, but it’s far from a relentless stream of attacks.

    “what you claim the left is doing w/out any real proof or acknowledgment that Fox doing this at all.”

    I acknowledge Fox is guilty of some of what you mention. I’m saying that the folks at MSNBC are as much or more guilty from their perspective. I can’t hardly stomach an entire hour of Olbermann or Maddow. They seem to want to mock or ridicule something the entire time. It’s really disgusting. Whether you believe/admit it or not, BillO and Beck DON’T try and spend their entire hour belittling the political opposition and often do many human interest stories that are very apolitical. Granted, I haven’t seen either one in several months, so I could be way off, but that was the impression I got the last time I saw them.

  210. shiloh says:

    grog, your inane/hyperbolic hypotheticals aside, what if you ever said something intelligent at 538.

    It would be breaking news …

    but, but, but your palin fetish is duly noted!

  211. Mule Rider says:

    “You don’t get anymore vitriolic and hateful rhetoric than that. The left needs to stop this hate speech now. Palin and her family are in danger because of remarks like that.”

    Great example, GROG. And it amazes me that they keep dismissing this kind of stuff as either being “harmless” – because, well, they’re “entertainers” and they can be (oh, and because Limbaugh said something mean too) – or “justified” because, well, you know, us conservatives, and Palin in particular, need to be put in our place because we’re just so wrong/misguided/ignorant/bigoted on everything.

  212. Mule Rider says:

    “It’s interesting that you equate having the truth pointed out as equivalent to bullying.”

    Yeah, not surprised you justify it that way. (Nazis: We’re sparing the rest of humankind from these inferior Jews….how can they equate THAT to murder?)

    Whether or not you realize it, that’s NOT what they’re doing 99% of the time. Most of these comments from Behar, O’Donnell, Maher, Olbermann, Maddow, Garofalo, Krugman, et al aren’t simply to point out the truth….they’re to inflict emotional blows by belittling and humiliating the opposition, They’re condescending remarks that have no business in civil discourse….anywhere.

    So tell me, shortchain, what “truths” are Paul Krugman – an esteemed Nobel Prize winning economist – telling when he refers to people with a differing worldview from his own as “zombies”? Pray tell what truth is there in that?

    Or Garofalo making sweeping generalizations of people being “teabagging redneck morons”?

  213. Mule Rider says:

    “Keith Olbermann’s special comment was perfect. The man is class personified.”

    This comment (from DC) says it all about the mentality of our local yokels. You’re never going to convince them that Olbermann’s – or Schultz’s, Maher’s, Krugman’s, etc. for that matter- hate speech is just that – hate speech – when they think he’s a “class act” or, in shortchain’s view of things, simply telling the truth about people. If they think Olbermann is “class personified,” I’d sure hate to meet the kind of person they think is “classless.”

    This is sickening. And there’s no way to have an intelligent discussion with people when they think any reference to “taking the country back,” “targeting a house seat for victory,” possible “force” if the government has over-reached too harshly, etc. – no matter how big/small, overt/subtle, direct/indirect the comment – is a reprehensible threat of violence so long as it’s uttered by conservative but is simply truth-telling or an accurate description of the political climate if it’s from a left-leaning individual.

    I’m really trying to be fair and balanced here, and I’ve stood up to denoune the crap that Fox, Limbaugh, et all blab about and their methods of doing it, but it doesn’t do any good when the same ol’ perpretratrors continue to toe the same liberal = always good and conservative = always bad/evil line.

  214. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    I’ll ask Mule Rider (and GROG and Bart) to cite specific quotes wherein “left” leaning politicians/candidates, radio or TV commentators used violent or gun metaphors during the last election cycle. Multiple uses from the same sources would help back your point.

    As we can easily, and have, just look at the last thread, pointed out Angle, Palin, Lewis, Larsen and Mander,( and even thrown in Manchin for shooting at a copy of a bill) you should be able to do the same without much effort.

    Let us have it. Qoutes and dates, please.

    Thank you

  215. Mule Rider says:

    “I’ll ask Mule Rider (and GROG and Bart) to cite specific quotes wherein “left” leaning politicians/candidates, radio or TV commentators used violent or gun metaphors during the last election cycle. Multiple uses from the same sources would help back your point.”

    I’ve posted this enough times now it’s getting old. Almost like you’re in denial or something. Granted, these are mostly just radio/TV personalities – and, granted, Mike Malloy hogs most of the worst action – but this’ll at least get you started.

    http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/uploads/RealRadioHatemongers.pdf

  216. dcpetterson says:

    Bart:

    You still haven’t told us if we should take the rhetoric of the Tea Party seriously — that is, Are they really trying to incite violence? — or are you guys just making rude noises that we should ignore?

    One or the other. “Lock and load,” “withdraw from the Union,” “the tree of liberty is watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants,” “second amendment remedies,” carrying guns to Presidential events, talk of “liberty” and “tyranny” and references to the America Revolution, tricorn hats, all that — is all this just advertising nonsense that no one in their right mind would take seriously? Or do you guys want us to imagine you really might do these things you are threatening to do?

    Which is it, Bart? Are you guys serious, or are you just intentionally spouting crap?

    I’m going to keep asking until I get an answer. Are you truly advocating violence against America? Or are you just trying to engage in senseless intimidation, with no actual intent to follow through on those threats?

  217. mclever says:

    @ shortchain
    It’s interesting that you equate having the truth pointed out as equivalent to bullying.

    I guess everybody should humor everyone else’s beliefs, or be accused of “bullying”.

    Apparently so, as I’ve learned within my own family, where I was accused of arrogant bullying and alienating everyone else because I pointed out that a divisive chainmail was false and directed them to politifact, snopes, and factcheck for clarification…

  218. shiloh says:

    a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest …

  219. dcpetterson says:

    Mule Rider, did you listen to Olbermann’s special comment that Mr. U linked to in his article? I think you’d find it pretty classy, too.

  220. Mule Rider says:

    As for politicians/candidates:

    You’ve got Obama calling out fellow Americans as “enemies” and “bringing a gun to a knife fight.” You could also go back to the “bitter” comments. Logically, someone could take these comments too literally and try to exterminate those people on his behalf.

    You’ve got Alan Grayson calling out an opponent as being as bad or worse than the Taliban. Now, we make it no secret that we’re trying to kill actual Taliban members, so, logically, couldn’t some deranged wacko take Mr. Grayson’s words to heart and try and murder Daniel Webster (Grayson’s R opponent) because he’s accused of being so evil?

    Do we need to get back into the radio/TV personalities? I’m sure if I do some digging, I can find some juicy tidbits from Maher, Olbermann, and others. Hell, you just saw above the comment that Olbermann made about Palin being a clear and present danger to the security of the country. Someone could easily stretch that into a need to “take her out.” Olbermann (or is it Krugman) has also called Ron Paul treasonous. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t treason sometimes punishable by the death penalty? Couldn’t some wacko take that and run with it as an excuse to mow down Ron Paul?

    Deflect and explain away as you see fit. I know it’s coming, and I don’t expect a, “You know what, Mule, you’re right. There’s some pretty vile stuff coming from the left that needs to stop and it needs to stop right now.”

    Just tell me how it’s justified and show us all what a joke your thought process is.

  221. shortchain says:

    MR,

    I read Krugman regularly. I don’t recall him calling anybody a “zombie”. You must be referring to a gross misreading of him by some intellectually-challenged right-winger. He did mention “zombies”, in a recent column, wherein you find, 6 sentences in, “On Social Security, Simpson is repeating a zombie lie — that is, one of those misstatements that keeps being debunked, but keeps coming back.” There is no comparison of anyone to “zombies”.

    You obviously didn’t read the column in question. Perhaps you should try to get your news from some less biased source — or at least try to verify the calumnies. Simply accepting them at face value doesn’t seem to be working.

    This is what he said today: “Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will. ”

    Why don’t you stop imagining that calling Palin, who is running for President all but officially, and received support from prominent Republicans for doing so, who spent the last day scrubbing her website, after the fact, with Olbermann, who is not supported for public office by anybody? (And who doesn’t need to scrub anything.)

    For my money, Palin is a clear and present danger to this nation. Olbermann is not. You may disagree with him, you may think what he says is outrageous, but he doesn’t match Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, or any of a dozen others, some of them in office, for incendiary remarks.

  222. drfunguy says:

    I was wondering what blood libel is myself.
    One definition: the accusation that Jews murder Christian Children to make Matzot for passover, or for other purpose.

  223. Mule Rider says:

    “Mule Rider, did you listen to Olbermann’s special comment that Mr. U linked to in his article? I think you’d find it pretty classy, too.”

    I actually listened to it and I was actually pleasantly surprised with Keith….in this instance. HOWEVER, it doesn’t make up for the fact that nearly every other thing he’s uttered in the realm of political discourse has been downright filthy, disgusting, and bordering on the kind of bile that is being roundly condemned on the left as being an incitement to violence.

  224. dcpetterson says:

    Mule Rider,
    Or Garofalo making sweeping generalizations of people being “teabagging redneck morons”?

    This is an honest question. I don’t mean to be nasty about it, I’m seriously asking.

    Do you think that these sorts of insults are equivalent to the overt threats of violence such as the “lock and load” rhetoric, or carrying guns to a Presidential event, or the rhetoric about “the blood of patriots and tyrants”? Or do you think of this conservative rhetoric as being symbolic, and we should ignore the implied violence because no one means it that way and so we should simply ignore these statements and move on?

  225. Mule Rider says:

    “I read Krugman regularly. I don’t recall him calling anybody a “zombie”. ”

    If you don’t recall that, then I have a hard time believing you’re a regular reader. I, actually, am a regular reader, and calling people with whom he disagrees a “zombie” is part of his schtick.

    Let me help you get started as you seem to be woefully ignorant of this little bit of name-calling Paul likes to pleasure his readers with:

    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=Krugman+zombie&rlz=1R2ADFA_enUS368&aq=f&aqi=g4g-m2g-v3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=ea5733a97aebfa72

  226. dcpetterson says:

    I actually listened to it and I was actually pleasantly surprised with Keith….in this instance.

    Thanks, Mule. Classy of you to say so.

    I’ve noted that effective oratory is often seen as being offensive by those who disagree with it, but sometimes as beautiful and soaring by those who agree.

    I don’t see the parallel between even the most strident of Olbermann’s words and the racist and violent statements from many personalities on the right. Do you honestly seem them as equivalent?

  227. drfunguy says:

    @MR
    I looked at your link and some of those quotes, if accurate, are beyond the pale.
    But I’ve never heard of these guys. Do you really think they have the audience of Coulter or Savage?
    As for Obama brining a gun to a knife fight, lets have the whole quote in context. It is clear that he is not inciting anyone to violence.
    Can you say the same of Coulter (McVeigh should have bombed the NY Times; liberals should be killed etc.) or Liddy (head shots! head shots!) or ever Angle’s second amendmnet remedies.

  228. mclever says:

    Mule Rider,

    I’m inclined to agree with you regarding Keith Olbermann as “class personified”, because I think he engages in too much vitriol and hyperbole (though not, that I’m aware, to the level of inciting violence).

    However, his most recent special comment was actually classy. Surprise, I know.

  229. Mule Rider says:

    “Apparently so, as I’ve learned within my own family, where I was accused of arrogant bullying and alienating everyone else because I pointed out that a divisive chainmail was false and directed them to politifact, snopes, and factcheck for clarification…”

    I have no idea one way or another on how your family communicates, but I will say that the messaging we get constantly from Olbermann, Maddow, Maher and the rest isn’t simply them directing their “misguided brothers/sisters in America” to a fact-checking site…..it’s constant mocking, derision, and attempts to humiliate. No similarities. At all.

    “For my money, Palin is a clear and present danger to this nation.”

    In what way? I don’t see where’s she’s more or less of a danger than Olbermann. She doesn’t hold elected office. Or very much power in any other capacity. It’s not like she controls Exxon or Microsoft or something. She’s in the news and “tweets” a lot, but so is Olbermann. How is she more of a danger? I’d love to know.

    Maybe to the halibut in Alaska’s bay but not to everyday Americans….or, at least, not any more than other people on TV (like Olbermann).

  230. dcpetterson says:

    Let’s be clear — none of the statements that have been mentioned here in conjunction with progressive personalities encourage violence or imply violence.

    On the conservative side, implied violence and encouragement to violence has been a standard part of the rhetoric.

    Let’s not pretend there is an equivalence. Some of the effective writers on the left might piss off some of the people on the right. And some of the personalities on the left have engaged in namecalling and insults.

    To claim there is some equivalence between that, and open calls for violent revolution, is truly insane.

  231. Mule Rider says:

    “As for Obama brining a gun to a knife fight, lets have the whole quote in context. It is clear that he is not inciting anyone to violence.”

    Okay, then fair is fair. Let’s hear most of the conservative comments in their full context. Most are not even close to trying to incite violence, just poorly chosen words about recapturing a house district or defeating a political opponent at the ballot box.

    Some, admittedly, are worse than others and, as a result, less “innocent” – and should not be tolerated – but let’s not excuse every left-winger who conjures up violent imagery because it’s not in proper context yet excoriate every right-winger because it’s obvious they have unquenchable bloodlust and want an armed rebellion.

  232. shortchain says:

    MR,

    1.) Krugman does not refer to people as zombies. He refers to ideas, to theories, as “zombies”. You clearly get all your news from right-wing commentators who personify these theories and then misinterpret the statements. You really should read Krugman directly, not through the lens of idiots.

    I defy you to find a direct quote from Dr. Krugman in which he refers to people as “zombies”. Get your facts straight, then we can talk.

    2.) There is no equivalence between Keith O. and Sarah P. She is, in fact, a danger to this nation, as she represents the supremacy of know-nothing-ism. Not that she, herself, is a danger. It’s merely the equivalent of everyone on a bus voting to put someone who doesn’t know how to drive in the driver’s seat. Is that person then solely responsible for the resulting tragedy?

    3. Keith O., on the other hand, just speaks his mind. He suggests no remedies for the danger. He doesn’t paint a rifle sight on Alaska or anything else. He isn’t even in the running for bus driver.

    As for the “clinging” quote by Obama — divisive and hateful it may be. It’s also, in my opinion, quite accurate. That’s probably what makes it so hateful. A gaffe, after all, must be true — but there is no suggestion of violence, of eliminationism, of hatred.

    This is a classic example of false equivalence. I can only suppose that, like GROG, he needs to see an equivalence here, where there is none. Fine. If he must, he must, I suppose — and I have no trouble with calling on all sides to be temperate in their speech and writing.

    But it’s still false equivalence.

  233. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Nope, Mule Rider, that’s just not good enough. Citing a right-wing site that has a mish-mash of examples of insulting quotes, NOT violent or gun metaphors, DOES NOT prove your point. I will NOT do your work for you as YOU haven’t even gone through that list and tried to find specific examples of my request. Don’t be intellectually lazy. If you have the courage of your convictions, you should have that ability.

    The Obama quote is 2-1/2 years old and a one time event.

    I asked for politicians, radio and TV commentators making violent and gun metaphors in the last election cycle.

    You failed that.

  234. shiloh says:

    MR ~ fact that nearly every other thing he’s uttered in the realm of political discourse has been downright filthy, disgusting, and bordering on the kind of bile

    Interesting hyperbolic generalization w/no specifics, citations, source quotes, verifiable/certifiable links …

    As a regular watcher of Keith his main schtick is truth laced w/sarcasm and an occasional bullseye, no pun intended, editorial comment.

    Yes, he’s a die hard liberal, but if he didn’t tell the truth nightly, unlike his fixednoise counterparts beck/billo/hannity 24/7 misinformation, he’d be bounced fairly quickly.

    And he has admitted many times that he’s a prima donna ie full of himself, but he wouldn’t have the highest rated MSNBC show w/out authentic news presentation and when he’s factually wrong he says so immediately, again unlike fixed where lying is a cottage industry except for Shepard Smith.

    >

    Eagerly awaiting citations verifying every other thing Olbermann says is filthy/disgusting/bile!

    There are silly generalizations and then there are inane 😉 generalizations …

    take care

  235. dcpetterson says:

    Here’s the deal.

    Teapers and Republicans have been using this violent imagery, invoking thoughts of revolution and assassination. They use this imagery to provoke their compatriots to protest and to make loud noises and to vote. But if anything described by this imagery actually happens, they want to be able to deny having encouraged it.

    They want it both ways. They want to sound big and mean and nasty. They want to intimidate and to scare people who disagree with them. They want to get all their friends excited and eager to participate, while frightening everyone else into staying home. But if anyone actually commits violence, they want to be able to pretend they didn’t have anything to do with it.

    And they’ll use as an excuse, “But but but but Keith Olbermann insulted me!”

    Really, guys. If you don’t view your own rhetoric as violent and hateful, you wouldn’t be trying to draw a parallel with someone else’s rhetoric. If your heroes didn’t realize they were inciting violence, they wouldn’t be out there scrubbing their websites right now. If you didn’t think the lines about “blood of tyrants and patriots” encouraged violence, you’d be repeating those lines right here, right now instead of running from them.

    You want to sound scary. But you don’t want to take responsibility for helping to create a climate of violence. Pathetic.

  236. mclever says:

    Mule Rider,

    My family dynamics aside, no one on MSNBC approaches the media stature of Palin, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck. Maddow and Olbermann can be as snide and derisive as they want, but snide, condescending, and insulting is NOT the same as using violent themes and metaphors the way many on the Right have taken to doing lately. Saying one’s opponents are idiots is NOT the same as saying or implying that one’s enemies should be taken out via violent means. (Gun metaphors, targets, “head shots”, revolution language, etc.)

    We’ve belabored the examples plenty of times, and it’s obvious to me that you just don’t see it that way. Perhaps that explains why you would (in the past) sometimes fly off the handle at a perceived slight, because of how you view escalatory retaliation.

  237. dcpetterson says:

    Continuing my previous thought —

    I was an unrepentant radical in my youth. Yes, elements of the radical left were violent and very proud of it back then. Some of them did openly call for revolution — and even sometimes tried to carry it off.

    Others (like Abby Hoffman) just used street theater — sometimes violent street theater. But yes, some elements actually used homemade bombs. There weren’t many of these people. But they were there.

    Today, the right wants to use very similar violent imagery. But they’re too wimpy to be honest about it. When push comes to shove, when someone actually gets hurt, they run from it and use “You do it too!” excuses (and can’t actually come up with any examples of when the left has “done it too”). The right is all bark and no bite, puffed up like a marshmallow bully.

    Either buy into your rhetoric for real — or get off it. Either way, we’ll start taking your seriously. You’ll have different reactions — if you actually go for revolution, there will be open war in our streets. If you drop the stupid hats with teabags and leave your guns at home — and start actually engaging in rational conversation — you’ll get some respect, and we’ll have an intelligent national conversation, and maybe some of America’s problems will be solved.

    But if you keep sitting the fence, then you’ll simply get laughed at. The insults and belittling you get from Olbermann and Maddow — that’ll get worse. And you’ll deserve every bit of it.

    You wimps. You have neither the courage of your rhetoric, nor the courage to be rational. Windbags, all of you, just as scared of “revolution” as you want us to be. Worse — you’re scare of accepting responsibility for your own crap, scared of the fact that we remember you said it and will hold your own words up to your faces.

    Man up already. I dare you.

  238. shortchain says:

    mclever,

    Make no mistake about it, there are cultural differences between north and south, east and west in this country. I have read somewhere that the south, to this day, still inherits something of a shame culture, whereas the north partakes more of a guilt culture. (You can look up “shame culture and guilt culture” and find out more.)

    The difference is that an insult, in a shame culture, is something that cannot be allowed. While a member of a guilt culture accused of being a moron and a reprobate, knowing that these are untrue, may simply shrug and make a snide comment, a member of a shame culture could easily see this as a defamation not to be tolerated.

    Or you could simply observe that some of us, as the Russians say, “without culture”. I’ll accept that insult with a nod. It’s just one of the many things I’m short on.

  239. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    dc said: “Man up already. I dare you.

    Now that’s funny.

    Asking that crowd to be HONEST is like asking a bear to sing. You won’t like what you hear (not singing!) and mightily annoy the bear.

    They HAVE no guts, unless they ARE hiding behind their metaphors. They are too lazy, just as when they are asked to produce proof of their assertions.

    It has been well and truly demonstrated in these last couple of threads that their ability to rationally engage is about on par with that of a badger.

  240. I’ll ask Mule Rider (and GROG and Bart) to cite specific quotes wherein “left” leaning politicians/candidates, radio or TV commentators used violent or gun metaphors during the last election cycle. Multiple uses from the same sources would help back your point.

    I’ve posted this enough times now it’s getting old. Almost like you’re in denial or something. Granted, these are mostly just radio/TV personalities – and, granted, Mike Malloy hogs most of the worst action – but this’ll at least get you started.
    http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/uploads/RealRadioHatemongers.pdf

    OK, I read them. Aside from Malloy, nobody was advocating, even obliquely, that someone should murder a conservative. The rhetoric was over-the-top, to be sure, but that wasn’t your assertion.

    It might be out there somewhere, but not in that link.

  241. GROG says:

    As more information about the lunatic Loughner comes out, the clearer it becomes that he didn’t commit this act based on the words of anyone on the left or the right. He’s nothing but a demented, pot smoking, atheist who thinks the Rover Mars landing was faked and thinks George Bush was the mastermindd behind 9/11. There’s no evidence that he even knows who Palin or Angle or Olberman are.

    The thing getting lost in all this rhetoric (which I’m guilty of) is the tragedy as well as the heroism of Saturdays events. It was the best America has to offer and the worst America has to offer.

    I’m in complete awe of the actions of those who put themselves in harms way to save lives and I’m devestated by the loss of 9 year Christina (I have an 8 year old girl myself). And Mrs. Giffords is a beautiful sole and I hope she has a full recovery. This world is a better place with people like her in it.

  242. mclever says:

    @ shortchain

    Yeah, definitely “guilt culture” here in the upper midwest… 🙂

    I lived in Texas and worked in Georgia, so I know what you’re talking about. I just never saw it explained that way before. “Shame culture” explains a lot of the disconnect.

  243. Mainer says:

    When ones entire program is built on lies, sound bites and bumper sticker slogans don’t get pissed when things go bad and all people remember are the lies, sound bites and bumper sticker slogans.

    But fret not Luntz will be in the office early tomorrow and by noon you will all know what to say and by supper every righty will have said it 5+ times in public. It will be used to answer any and all questions and will, until further notice, be used in place of good morning and all other salutations and greetings.

    You flakes aren’t patriots your parrots.

  244. shiloh says:

    As re: to the but, but, but Keith/Rachel faux equivalency it is interesting for the longest time 538 winger trolls have been ranting ad nauseam nobody watches MSNBC soooo which is it ~ do they have influence or don’t they lol as again they come nowhere near the hate/fear/scorched earth extreme rhetoric heard daily on winger radio and fixednoise …

    take care, blessings

  245. dcpetterson says:

    Thanks for the update, GROG.

    The question still stands, however. In your opinion, is the violent and threatening revolutionary rhetoric of the right to be taken seriously, or not?

  246. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Olbermann just announced that he is doing away, at least the title, with “Worst Persons”.

    Now to the chair to watch those damn Tigers, who already proved their ability with my Gamecocks, dine on fowl.

  247. dcpetterson says:

    The question still stands, however. In your opinion, is the violent and threatening revolutionary rhetoric of the right to be taken seriously, or not?

    I’ve asked this question, in various forms, many times on this thread. None of the conservatives have even acknowledged it.

    The refusal to either embrace or disown this revolutionary rhetoric of the Teapers is pretty striking. I didn’t realize it was so easy to shut down the Right. All you have to do is ask if we should believe them.

  248. Mainer says:

    Grog, I have grandchildren the little girls age. I feel so so sad for her family. We do need to celebrate the real heros here and there were apparently many. My hat is off to all those that interviened, that responed in many ways, that kept the horrible toll from being even worse right down to the citizens of Tuson that answered the call for blood. We need to stop to reflect about the good that is still in America.

  249. Number Seven says:

    MRI have no idea one way or another on how your family communicates, but I will say that the messaging we get constantly from Olbermann, Maddow, Maher and the rest isn’t simply them directing their “misguided brothers/sisters in America” to a fact-checking site…..it’s constant mocking, derision, and attempts to humiliate. No similarities. At all.

    The mocking, derision, and attempts to humiliate come from the fact that people who fail to look at fact checking sites before spreading viral e-mails deserve to be mocked, derided and humiliated.

  250. Jean says:

    As a wise blogger commented after Saturday’s attempted assassination of a US congresswomen:

    “The point is, those who want to maintain the fiction that liberals and conservatives are contributing in equal measure to the coarsening of our political culture and the disintegration of reasoned political discourse, must do one of two things. Either they must reach back more than 50 years into history to find examples where liberals were as radically misbehaving as conservatives are today – and to a time when Americans were bitterly divided over a war that most now concede was a tragic mistake. Or, they must overlook the fact that when you scratch the surface on over-the-top rhetoric you might hear from the left, what you mostly find are the outraged reactions of liberals to even more outrageous actions or utterances by those on the right.

    The homosexual who calls a Christian Fundamentalist a “bigot” is not the intemperate mirror image of the religious fanatic who called the gay a “fag” in the first place – and no, fundamentalist Christians do not get a hall pass just because they’ve redefined their bigotry as the “traditional religious values” that compel them to treat homosexuality as a crime against nature and a sin against God.

    Likewise, conservatives frequently equate the rough treatment they give Barack Obama with the equally sulfurous grief that George W. Bush got from the left. Noise is noise after all, the right seems to say, so the merits do not matter.

    But, really. How do you compare calling President Obama a fascist with liberal hostility to Bush over torture policies that even Bush’s own JAG Corps and Joint Chiefs of Staff rejected?

    How do you compare calling Obama a socialist who hates America with liberal animosity to the invasion of a country, on sketchy intelligence at best, which even provoked a number of three-star generals to take early retirement just so they could scold their one-time Commander-in-Chief?

    How do you compare the right wing hysteria that’s met President Obama when he’s relied on more than 50 years of conventional economic stimulus doctrine to fight the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, with liberal attacks against domestic surveillance policies which clearly broke the law — or with Bush’s inflated views of executive authority that the American Bar Association called a violation of constitutional checks and balances and a threat to democracy?

    We’re not talking about legitimate criticism for the many mistakes that Barack Obama has made. We’re talking about ideological extremism and how it is contaminating our democratic politics. And as much as apologists for right wing misbehavior want to say liberals and conservatives are equally to blame for this plague of intemperance, the comparison isn’t even close.

    George W. Bush was attacked by liberals because he broke the law and threatened long-standing constitutional principles. Barak Obama is being attacked mercilessly by conservatives today because he’s a liberal Democratic president who refuses to govern like a right wing Republican. Period.

    http://www.theygaveusarepublic.com/diary/7469/establishment-closes-ranks-after-shooting-to-protect-gop-from-charges-of-extremism

  251. dcpetterson says:

    @Jean

    THANK YOU for posting that! Incredibly good.

  252. Mr. Universe says:

    X2, GROG, X2

    Auburn wins by a field goal in the last 02 seconds. Dang.

  253. Monotreme says:

    Thanks, Jean. Very well put.

  254. Number Seven says:

    I was checking out Salon for the latest Tom Tomorrow toon and ran into this
    Salon article charting out left and right wing acts of violence. Jean is right, you really have to go far back to find comparable levels. So lets focus on just the acts since militias came back in style, so to speak.

    Make of this chart what you will but what I see is what I have felt for a long time. Right wing violence has gone to astronomical levels.

  255. Number Seven says:

    Just wanted to add that the above link is a work in progress. If any of the usual suspects feel the list is biased or unfair in some way, please submit any corrections to the author and he will add them in.

    The ratio as it stands is about 1 act of left wing violence to 80 acts of right wing violence. Something must be missing so please feel free to e-mail the author at his site on Salon to add the dozens of acts of left wing violence that must have been left out of his extensive chart. /snark

  256. Grog said: As more information about the lunatic Loughner comes out, the clearer it becomes that he didn’t commit this act based on the words of anyone on the left or the right. He’s nothing but a demented, pot smoking, atheist who thinks the Rover Mars landing was faked and thinks George Bush was the mastermindd behind 9/11. There’s no evidence that he even knows who Palin or Angle or Olberman are

    You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter what this crazy person believed any more than what anyone who commits terrorist acts believes. One person doesn’t represent a whole group. The point is should we be using this type of rhetoric when the reality of it is so devastating, terrifying, and criminal? Should we be using words that describes this exact scenario as a possible ‘solution’ to our society’s problems or should we be promoting civil discourse? This isn’t even a right vs left issue (even though the right does this FAR more often, the left is not innocent), but a societal issue that obviously needs to be addressed, starting with our political leaders and followed by our media. The attention whoring that has been happening for the last 20 years needs to stop.

  257. Mule RIder says:

    “Auburn wins by a field goal in the last 02 seconds. Dang.”

    (Not that the two events are comparable, but) between the Arizona shooting and Auburn winning the BCS title, it’s been a brutal and sickening couple of days.

    Sorry, Mr. U, I was really with you in hoping that Oregon would lay an ass-whooping on the Tigers….only hope now is the NCAA stripping them of the title for illicit/improper conduct.

  258. Mr. Universe says:

    @Mule,

    I kinda felt that Auburn would win. If for anything other than mass. The Auburn guys weighed a good 30 lbs. apeice over the ducks. The SEC tends to grow their players large. They did play a little dirty, didn’t they? And that ‘almost’ tackle in the last minutes gave AU a big advantage. Still, two two-point conversions gives the ducks the reputation for an ‘Oregon Touchdown’ (meaning you have to beat the ducks by eight points instead of seven) and cements the reputation of our coach embodied in the chant you won’t see on TV: Big Balls Chip. I can hardly wait for next year.

  259. Pingback: Outrage Speech: Was the Left Right? | 538 Refugees

  260. griffithinsider says:

    Am writing a thesis on Public Trust in WikiLeaks, the Media and the Government and need to know what your opinions are. The online survey is multiple choice and will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Please follow the link: http://www.kwiksurveys.com/?s=ILLLML_9669e09d. Would be great if you would encourage others to do the survey also.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s