Political & Elections

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

RE: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot in Arizona

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Al has chutzpah to the extreme.

zoosermom · Senior Member

Ok, I'm going to leave Bogney alone now. We'll never agree, but it does seem to be true that he is a witty and interesting poster. So I'm going to agree to disagree and move on from busting his chops.

But I'm not leaving the topic. The most outrageous piece to this whole mess was the article this morning by Al Sharpton invoking Martin Luther King Jr. and discussing inflammatory rhetoric. I could vomit. I mean that literally. For those of you who aren't familiar, google "Freddy's Fashion Mart" and you will see that Sharpton's literally inflammatory rhetoric (calling a Jewish landlord a "bloodsucker" and "interloper") led directly to a firebombing that killed six people. But, somehow, there was little outrage from the media about that direct connection or his participation in the Crown Heights riots. There the bastard is writing today in the Washington Post, the bastion of liberal media. I can't imagine anyone wanting read his opinion. I thought I was beyond being shocked, but I guess I'm not. Are there no statesmen in America anymore?

geeps20 · Senior Member

right Bogney..PC at it's finest...so I can't understand what the guy is saying..so that means I'm making fun of his lisp? Actually, I never even thought of his fumbling, bumbling speech as a lisp...sorry.

zoosermom · Senior Member

Donna, some of us find connecting someone with a murder to be a serious and disturbing thing. I am aware of the origin of the term "blood libel" and both understand and respect your upset with the use of the term by Mrs. Palin.
I am equally bothered by the fact that she never had met, communicated with, had an online relationship with, influenced or otherwise crossed paths with the murderer yet in some quarters Mrs. Palin IS being connected. That is every bit as dangerous and outrageous (perhaps more so) than the rhetoric being decried. It's not a little thing.

zoosermom · Senior Member

Your opinion is entitled to no greater weight than any one else's here, and your opinion is not fact, just your opinion.
I never said that my opinions held more weight than anyone's and don't believe that they do for a second. What I did say was that I find your opinions on this topic repulsive. It seems to be that you are having a problem with being challenged on the basis of your own opinions. Which hold not much water with me. You haven't presented anything except your own opinions as I have and as others have. It's the nature of the beast Bogney.

Bogney · Senior Member

I think your last assertion is probably untrue. I suspect that you can understand what comes out of his "fumbling mouth" with any sort of legitimate effort to hear him at all. However, he is gay and lisps and is liberal, which is probably why you can't hear anything that he says.

I am not a big Barney Frank fan, and certainly there is little if any political correctness on this forum, but making fun of a lisp is low even for you Geeps. I disagree with a lot of what you write, but I can still understand the writing that results from your fumbling fingers.

-- Edited by Bogney on Wednesday 12th of January 2011 07:53:36 AM

DonnaL · Senior Member

Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" in her speech to describe the criticism of her crosshairs, "bullseye," "don't retreat, reload" rhetoric, was utterly contemptible. It makes me more upset than almost anything she's ever said. I suppose the one saving grace is that I highly doubt that she has the remotest understanding of what the term signifies. I'll bet that whoever wrote the speech for her knows what it means, though. That someone decided to go there is unspeakably repulsive.

Is it really necessary for people to keep cutting and pasting examples they find in the right-wing blogosphere that supposedly prove that "the Democrats are just as bad" when it comes to violent rhetoric? (I have yet to see a single example of violent rhetoric specifically against Rep. Giffords that approaches Palin's. And, no, one anonymous poster on DailyKos who said "she's dead to me" because she voted for John Lewis instead of Pelosi for Speaker -- which, in context if you read that post, very obviously signifies shunning, not violence -- and took down and then restored his own diary (there's no evidence that dailykos "scrubbed" it) does not equal a former vice-presidential candidate of the Republican party putting crosshairs on Giffords' district. The supposed screenshot I've seen of similar bullseyes from dailykos, with a picture of Giffords on it, is a photoshopped fake).

In any event, then, for every such piece of "evidence" that gets posted, I could probably go to the progressive blogosphere and find many more examples of violent rhetoric from Republicans, and cut and paste it here. There's certainly plenty of it to choose from. As inexcusable as I think it is from both sides. There's also no dispute that in Giffords' district, the gun metaphors were 100% from her opponent and his supporters in the last election. If you read any of the stories during that campaign, the verbal attacks on Giffords and her supporters were despicable. Are you all really so confident that none of that rhetoric in that district didn't solidify or exacerbate what was obviously Loughner's longstanding grudge against her because she supposedly snubbed him at some meeting 3 years ago?

We'll probably never know, unless Loughner ever speaks. Even if he does, I suspect that he's become increasingly incapable of putting two logical words together, and at this point is probably just a raving lunatic. (Or, as Dr. Wong on Law and Order SVU would put it, he's had a "psychotic break.")

Separately, from reading the Wall Street Journal article yesterday about Loughner's posts on a gaming forum, and the clearly misogynistic tone of a number of them (not to mention the "Die, Bitch" note found in his room together with the references to assassination and "I planned ahead"), I am beginning to believe that his overall underlying misogyny and bitterness towards women (I suspect that he wasn't exactly popular with women) may well have become increasingly focused on Rep. Giffords over time. As if she became a symbol of his hatred of women in general. It really wouldn't surprise me if that has a lot to do with what happened.

-- Edited by DonnaL on Wednesday 12th of January 2011 07:49:26 AM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Wednesday 12th of January 2011 07:49:55 AM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Wednesday 12th of January 2011 07:50:48 AM

geeps20 · Senior Member

Frank is funny?..now that is funny. Actually, maybe he is, but I can't understand a single word from his bumbling, fumbling mouth.

BigG · Guru

Barney Frank is not a hypocrite. I admire that in a politician. The people of his district in MA know exactly what they are getting and can vote for him based on how well they think he has done and will do his job. IMO that is "morally superior" to a "family values"sex addict of any sexual orientation.

But Abyss has it right. Represenative Frank "fumbled the ball" with respect to the financial crisis.

hayden · Senior Member

soccerguy, yes, a dem is fund-raising with references to the Arizona tragedy. If you read conservative blogs, those fundraising letters are being pointed to endlessly.

And if you read liberal blogs, you will see endless posting of Republicans fund-raising off the same tragedy in the exact same way.

One thing you can be sure of in politics is that both sides, with full equivalency, fundraise off anything that happens. Neither does it more than the other, as the endless need for money is the nature of our current political reality.

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Busdriver, I'll give you McKinney and Waters, but apparently you have never once listened to Barney Frank if you think he's stupid. The guy is sharp as a tack, and funny too.

Is that before or after he watched over the collapse of the US economy in one of the few committees in Congress that has the ability to do something about it?

He might be the most culpable of all the remaining members in Congress!

busdriver11 · Guru

He is funny. I guess it's just hard to listen beyond the lisp. So maybe I should take that one back, that's probably unfair.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Busdriver, I'll give you McKinney and Waters, but apparently you have never once listened to Barney Frank if you think he's stupid. The guy is sharp as a tack, and funny too.

busdriver11 · Guru

"Et tu Busdriver? Was that deliberate ambiguity as to who lives in "an imaginary world that doesn't exist," left wingers or paranoid delusionals, an inference that they are both the same, or a gramatical faux pas, of which we are all guilty here?"

Oh, I'm guilty of many a gramatical error....or maybe it was purely a rational comparison, unintentional or not? Or is it just the tasty red wine having its way? Who is to know, anyways? By the way, glad to have you back, Bogney. We probably could use more balance on this forum.

"I don't know why you think Democrats think Cynthia McKinney is brilliant. The woman has more hair than wit. And Maxine Waters is a dope. But, have you noticed? Neither of those women is running for President. Neither was a Vice Presidential candidate."

True, but the Dems certainly didn't ever bring up how stupid they are (though it is quite apparent they are morons in the extreme). And nobody seems to bring up the fact that the immensely powerful, third in line to the presidency, was Nancy Pelosi--who often appeared either drunk or completely delusional. I'd put Sarah Palin up against her in a debate any day of the week. You think she's a moron? Try listening to some of those fine ladies. Hey, actually listen to what Joe Biden says every now and then! Al Gore? Barney Frank? You know we could keep going on endlessly. There is no shortage of people with more confidence than brains, on either side of the aisle.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I don't know why you think Democrats think Cynthia McKinney is brilliant. The woman has more hair than wit. And Maxine Waters is a dope. But, have you noticed? Neither of those women is running for President. Neither was a Vice Presidential candidate.

soccerguy315 · Guru

One D is using the attempted murder to fundraise: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sanders-fundraises-arizona-murders_533487.html

Former Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) had some nice things to say about a Florida politician:

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/roderick-random/kanjorski-ponders-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#axzz1A4hLabIP

I'll toss in this one from John Kerry too:

Maher: “You could have went to New Hampshire and killed 2 birds with one stone.”
Kerry: “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.”

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Tuesday 11th of January 2011 09:19:17 PM

soccerguy315 · Guru

DonnaL wrote:

Soccerguy, you didn't even attempt to answer my question, except with an absurd slippery slope argument. Even apart from the fact that it's conceivable that 6 shots might be necessary for self-defense (whereas if you need 33, I suspect there isn't much hope for you), I could turn it the other way and ask you what limits can be imposed by your logic. It's OK to have a 33-bullet clip, so private ownership of a machine gun is OK? A tank? A nuclear weapon in your suitcase? You could at least attempt to be reasonable, instead of jerking your knee all the way up to your forehead.

you said 33 bullets is too many. How many is appropriate?

IMO the problem is the crazy person, not how many bullets they had.

Bogney · Senior Member

I am not above borrowing. smile

BigG · Guru

Hey!That's my schtick!

Bogney · Senior Member

Et tu Busdriver? Was that deliberate ambiguity as to who lives in "an imaginary world that doesn't exist," left wingers or paranoid delusionals, an inference that they are both the same, or a gramatical faux pas, of which we are all guilty here? smile

My critics are uniting against me, they are tapping the phones, they are coming in over the airwaves, the computer, . . . . biggrin

busdriver11 · Guru

"It has a lot to do with it, and you're naive if you think otherwise. I'm sorry, but a lot of people aren't interested in having a moron as the next President."

True, most people would not like a moron as the next president.

Then again, you can only be a moron if you are a Republican woman. If you are Nancy Pelosi, Cynthia McKinney, or Maxine Waters....you can say or do anything, and you aren't stupid. Because you are a Democrat. You must be absolutely brilliant.

I guarantee you, if Sarah Palin was a Democrat, and spouting out the party line....she would be lauded as a true leader.

Dang, she must be good. Because here we are, still talking about her.

geeps20 · Senior Member

well, being a moron would surely deliver incompetence in the White House..what's the reason for our current President's incompetence? I'm just hoping for a leader in 2012.

DonnaL · Senior Member

geeps20 wrote:

^ you really think the left hate of Palin is because they don't want incompetence in government....really? So, all the bashing from the left is so she won't become your next President?..You and I both know that is not the reason.

It has a lot to do with it, and you're naive if you think otherwise. I'm sorry, but a lot of people aren't interested in having a moron as the next President.

busdriver11 · Guru

" In paranoid schizophrenia, a common delusion is that you're being singled out for harm. For instance, you may believe that the government is monitoring every move you make or that a co-worker is poisoning your lunch. You may also have delusions of grandeur — the belief that you can fly, that you're famous or that you have a relationship with a famous person, for example. You hold on to these false beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. Delusions can result in aggression or violence if you believe you must act in self-defense against those who want to harm you."

Paranoid schizophrenics are not living in the same world as the rest of us. They aren't acting bizarrely because they're concerned about the health care plan or the stimulus, or overly concerned about government spending. Just because some overzealous left wingers are crossing their fingers and hoping they'll find a note saying the shooter was following Ms. Palin's wishes won't make it so. They live in an imaginary world that doesn't exist.

Bogney · Senior Member

The flaw in the "no evidence" that he was a consumer of right wing blather approach of David Brooks and others is that in the age of mass media, no one needs to be a conspicuous consumer of media to be exposed to it regularly. It is ubiquitous. There is no way to tell what the shooter was exposed to, and he is very likely an unreliable historian. He may have gone off on Obama's conciliatory speech about race relations after the Reverend Wright crisis, who knows.

However, having the air waives saturated with violent rhetoric against the "unAmerican" opposition does not promote domestic tranquility or the general welfare. It agitates the base so they will get out the vote, and it gets good ratings that attract advertising revenue so the purveyors of outrageous rhetoric get rich. It bumps up the price of Palin's speaking engagements because she will pump up the crowd with her zingers, hand notes, and winks. The emphasis on patriotism or lack thereof, or the notion that the opposition is trying to destroy the country, is clearly a call to action for extremists to save the country in ways that go beyond mere voting.

Winchester, going back to one of your points, what is the difference between murder, war, and execution with due process? Only the legitimacy conferred by government approval for two out of three. When innocent blacks were executed in the south based upon a completely biased legal system, there was virtually no difference between "legal" execution and murder. Unjustified wars of aggression are mass murders, though the soldiers are not responsible - they are the instruments used by the politicians who are responsible. The cold blooded planning and killing of a person who tortured and murdered one's family before them (say the Connecticut murders talked about on CC) would probably present a reasonably good shot a jury nullification of a murder prosecution. I do not believe that things are nearly as simple and black and white as you try to make them out to be.

geeps20 · Senior Member

^ you really think the left hate of Palin is because they don't want incompetence in government....really? So, all the bashing from the left is so she won't become your next President?..You and I both know that is not the reason.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

If it's elitist to want smart, capable people in my government, I'm guilty and unrepentant. Competence matters.

But I suspect that several right-leaning posters on this board agree. They too want smart people, not stupid people, in their government. Obviously, being smart is not enough, but I don't want to vote for dopes. (And before my friends on the right bring it up, good God, yes, there are plenty of idiots on the left in Congress. I don't deny it. Districts that are heavily Democratic or heavily Republican are particularly prone to electing dopes.)

geeps20 · Senior Member

Fang....so libs hate Palin because they consider her less intelligent than themselves? Dumb people should be seen and not heard?...They irritate you?...sounds like typical liberal elitism.

Bogney · Senior Member

Woodwork: Common sense and common experience tells most people that fighting words often lead to fights. As demonstrated on this forum, insults lead to anger. As demonstrated in real life, anger often leads to violence among people without much self-control, and there are a lot of those on all sides of the political spectrum. Therefore, being especially effective at making people angry at an opponent, and using metaphors of violence as to what to do about it, should make rational people concerned about potential acts of violence in response. So, yes, you did miss something.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

And speaking of not capitalizing on human tragedies, here is Rush Limbaugh claiming that the Pima County Sheriff "wouldn't mind if the shooter's acquitted." Dude. Vile suggestion. Nobody wants the shooter acquitted, especially not the Sheriff, who personally knew two of the victims.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101100020

winchester · Guru

George Will, also right on, and echoing my sentiments:

A characteristic of many contemporary minds is susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior can be traced to some diagnosable frame of mind that is a product of promptings from the social environment. From which flows a political doctrine: Given clever social engineering, society and people can be perfected. This supposedly is the path to progress. It actually is the crux of progressivism. And it is why there is a reflex to blame conservatives first.
...
This McCarthyism of the left - devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data - is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011003685.html

-- Edited by winchester on Tuesday 11th of January 2011 03:24:05 PM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

^ it's simple Zoosermom...the far left hates any strong woman unless of course they are also far left.

That seems to me to be mightily oversimplified.

Compare the reaction from the left concerning three Republican women: Sarah Palin, former eBay CEO and gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, and former HP CEO and senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina. Consider Democrats' views of these women.

Whitman is regarded as a competent manager and a strong women, whom Democrats opposed because she advocates policies we don't like. (I was impressed by Whitman's speech at the Republican Convention, for example; she said a lot of things that made sense.) She is indisputably a strong woman. I don't think it would be accurate to say that Democrats hate Whitman, certainly not in the visceral way we despise Palin. I didn't vote for Whitman, and I think she would have had troubles with her management style as Governor, but I don't think she would have been terrible and I'm willing to concede that she might have been very good; clearly, she has considerable abilities.

Fiorina is regarded as a smart woman who was an incompetent manager at HP. People who used to work for her detest her, but I don't think Democrats in general hate her, particularly, though we don't want to see her buy herself a political office.

Palin is regarded as stupid and incompetent. This is not about her beauty (she is indeed beautiful) or her class origins. We think she's ignorant, and unwilling to work to learn. We think she acts as if she is proud of her ignorance, appealing to the worst in people.

So let's not claim that Democrats have the same feelings about every strong woman on the right. We do not.

Woodwork · Senior Member

hyperbolic and violent rhetoric can lead to this type of outcome

I missed it. When did that happen? This is a statement on fact. Is there something to back this up as a fact or is this just the way that liberals feel in general and therefore in particular in this instance?

winchester · Guru

David Brooks echoes my sentiments today in the New York Times:

Mainstream news organizations linked the attack to an offensive target map issued by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. The Huffington Post erupted, with former Senator Gary Hart flatly stating that the killings were the result of angry political rhetoric. Keith Olbermann demanded a Palin repudiation and the founder of the Daily Kos wrote on Twitter: “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.” Others argued that the killing was fostered by a political climate of hate.

These accusations — that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl — are extremely grave. They were made despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that Loughner was part of these movements or a consumer of their literature. They were made despite the fact that the link between political rhetoric and actual violence is extremely murky. They were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness. … the political opportunism occasioned by this tragedy has ranged from the completely irrelevant to the shamelessly irresponsible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Bogney · Senior Member

Geeps, your speculation is mildly revealing about you, but not the objects of your speculation.

Busdriver: Your post makes sense to me, but there is a subtle distinction between tying this shooting to Palin, and noting that hyperbolic and violent rhetoric can lead to this type of outcome, as feared by the victim. I don't believe, and have not said, that Palin's rhetoric was the direct cause of this shooting. I do believe that she is using "loaded" rhetoric dangerously. I also believe that it is possible that such rhetorical could set off a disturbed brain to comit similarly heinous acts, and we really don't know, and probably can't know if it set off this guy. I absolutely agree that it would go beyond the pale to suggest that she deserved it, or caused her own tragedy, because of her position on gun control. While that argument could be made, blaming the victim of a tragedy would be cause for outrage. It is fair to note that this type of incident is a good argument for more gun control than we presently have.

Zoosermom: setting yourself up as the arbitrer of truth is a bit much. Your belief is not "the truth" as much as you seem to wish it were. Your opinion is entitled to no greater weight than any one else's here, and your opinion is not fact, just your opinion. Defending your insults with "its the truth about how I feel," is just an excuse to keep hurling insults, something I would expect to hear from a teenager rather than an adult.

As for the attacks on Palin from liberal media, those are more than balanced out by Fox and right wing talk radio. Each side his their zealots and publicity hounds. The right's are actually becoming potentially viable political candidates, which is what separates Palin from the pack and from those on the left.

Woodwork, the Second Amendment is far from clear. Five of 9 Supreme Court justices recently "clarified" it in the McDonald v. Chicago (or something close to that), but there is no modern equivalent of the militia of the founder's era. The dissenter's disagree with the "original intent" divined by the majority. In any event, the parameters of the "right to bear arms" will be thrashed out in the Court for years. Perhaps this shooting will change the composition of the majority next time. We can always hope.

Big G: I hope she is never elected, but if she is I hope that you are wrong about the outcome. Assasinating the opposition is bad for democracy, which should leave it at character assasination.

Winchester: You have taken the name of a weapons manufacturer which seems suggestive of your point of view. Given their content, I would not be "flattered" by your directing your posts to mine - alternately amused or annoyed perhaps. If they were directed elsewhere, fine.

geeps20 · Senior Member

^ it's simple Zoosemom...the far left hates any strong woman unless of course they are also far left. I don't believe Palin should run for President, but I do admire her strength, guts, and determination. Any woman giving birth to a child with Down Syndrome shows me something. I get the feeling many don't like her because they would have taken the easy way out an aborted.

busdriver11 · Guru

Here is a problem, as clarity is important.

When something horrific happens, law enforcement needs to determine the specifics. How and why. When people start immediately pointing fingers due to trying to score political points, that muddies the waters, it doesn't answer the real questions.

These are two separate issues entirely.

Yes, I dislike all the ugliness on both sides, the extremism, all the hatred. I wish we could get away from that. All the exaggeration, lying and vitriol that have gone on for years. I hope the extremes and loud voices on both sides decide to tone it down soon.

But to try to tie that into the acts of a schizophrenic, without knowing any of the facts, is a mistake. It makes the left look like opportunistic bs'ers and sure as heck isn't helping tone down anything, is it? Making Sarah Palin the new George Bush, blaming her for everything under the sun. And you know what? She's probably loving all the publicity.

How about we ask that people with the microphones start asking the real questions. Like could this have been stopped by not letting a nutcase buy a gun? Or forcing him to be evaluated? What did the people in his life do, who knew he was crazy? What measures do we have in place to prevent this? Did the police follow up on credible threats?

Woodwork · Senior Member

DonnaL wrote:

Even apart from the fact that it's conceivable that 6 shots might be necessary for self-defense (whereas if you need 33, I suspect there isn't much hope for you)

Now that was good-n-funny.

Like Zossermom, I am uncomfortable with every Nimrod and their cousin carrying a gun. There is most certainly a problem there, as we see in this incident. At the same time, the 2nd amendment seems pretty clear to me...in any case, I'm not comfortable with simply calling the police and waiting for help if my family is in danger.
I think people should, in the least, be able to have guns in their homes.

And the incessant whining on the Left over being insulted or afraid must be, by now, even tiresome to those on the Left (not to mention reinforcing an unfair stereotype). It is non-stop campaigning, barely even taking a moment to live outside the politics of everything. Talking points as life!

Certainly, if hateful rhetoric was the device behind senseless violence, the victim of choice would not have been a relatively unknown moderate from Arizona. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul...then maybe you could fool a few reasonable people. As it is, we are again shown how out of touch political-tools can be when ideology is their dearest lodestone.

BigG · Guru

She is not part of the "traditional ruling elite"; not an Ivy Leaguer, not ftom a "seven sisters "college, etc. Thus her prominance enrages the MSM and the Republican moderate right.

The "old money" Republicans are terrified of losing to the TEA partiers and other "Palinistas".

If she does start to look like a viable candidate for President, look for an assasination attempt by a pro who won't miss.

zoosermom · Senior Member

Starting a new post to discuss issues, rather than our personal conflicts:

Do you deny that Palin is charismatic demogogue who has used metaphors of violence toward her opposition, and more so than similarly situated political opponents have used toward her?
I would not deny that, but I would say the question is just a bit disingenuous in light of the media pecking party long directed at Palin. In light of the fact that the mainstream media is often the propaganda arm of the left, "similarly situated political opponents" don't have to get their hands dirty. We can have Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic crawl into her vagina on a regular basis, we can have influential comics publicly encourage gang rape, we can have an Internet campaign saying "abort Palin." So the story is a lot more nuanced, Bogney. As I said, I'm not a fan of Palin. I'm a New York City woman whose life experience couldn't be farther from Mrs. Palin's. I don't get her in the least and she might be an alien life form for all I know, but I would dearly love to know what it is about her (besides her vagina, of course) that makes so many so crazed. Including so many on the right.

zoosermom · Senior Member

Zoosermom: really, you are becoming histrionic. What are anyone's motives here other than defense of their political beliefs?
Bogney, I think your posts here are dishonest and I called you on that. I do respect the glimmer of honesty you showed and did reference that, too. I don't know how to be any more clear than to say that I do think you are out of touch with the far left and that I don't think your posts here are honest in the facts. If you find that insulting, fine. But I still think you're out of touch and dishonest. We don't have to pretend that all words are true or are equal because they aren't. You find my objections to you histrionic. That's fine with me. If that's your peception, that's cool. I expressed my view clearly and I stand by it. You've stated yours and stand by it. I have no compelling need to have a meeting of the minds with you. It's perfectly find for me to think you aren't being honest about this situation and for you think that my offense is too extreme.

I read history. Often. I am familiar with the concept. I would even discuss the concept you referenced in the context of Palin, of whom I am not a fan in the least. But NOT in the context of this shooting. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but when your expression of that opinion engenders disgust from other people, well, you own that too.

Do you have anything to discuss on the topic because I think there are a lot more important issues that come into play than whether we will ever agree? We won't.

Bogney · Senior Member

Zoosermom: really, you are becoming histrionic. What are anyone's motives here other than defense of their political beliefs? You are searching around for vituperative epithets ("delusional," "ignorant," "missing something," "not thinking," "hell bent on scoring point," but at least you've dropped "liar") to describe my posts, which are expressions of my point of view, for what purpose? Your venting is hardly persuasive. In your world, is describing someone you disagree with as "dishonest" or "out of touch" not insulting? If you were trying to be the least bit objective, you would acknowledge that you have plainly resorted to insults, which is your First Amendment right, just a poor use of that right.

"The loss of life here is so horrifying as to make one's knees week." This loss of life is appalling, but no more horrifying than most other murders and assaults. This one has just received more publicity because of who it involved. I frequently read about murders of school children, like the innocent child killed here, that are equally "horrible" but that we more or less ignore because the victims are not famous, just dead.

My point is that this appalling crime is not so horrific as to defy respectful comment about it. My comments have generally been respectful except as to Palin's style of incitement, which has literally become Fox's style since she went on Fox's payroll. I spoke out against that type of rhetoric on CC long before this event ever happened. My comments have echoed those of the most famous victim, who descried Palin's targeting her. I do not respect that sort of rhetoric and see no reason to respect it now.

Read some history. Charismatic demogogues have always been threats to democracy and certainly threats to the physical well-being of their opponents. Do you deny that Palin is charismatic demogogue who has used metaphors of violence toward her opposition, and more so than similarly situated political opponents have used toward her? There is a difference between a rant that Winchester might post here and the speech by the vice presidential nominee that is broadcast to the nation, and the speech of a potential candidate for the presidency.

busdriver11 · Guru

Imagine how horrified people would be if some said Congresswoman Giffords deserved it because she was a gun rights advocate. And how ridiculous that would sound. Same thing as immediately drawing a conclusion this was because of right wing rhetoric. Ridiculous.

Anyone betting that if it hadn't been this congresswoman he'd been obsessed with for years, it would have been the school that he thought was a ripoff, who kicked him out? God knows how many bodies that would have been. Who would the media have blamed then? The anti-illegal alien rhetoric in Arizona?

zoosermom · Senior Member

I don't think it served the public well when blame and politicization happened almost simultaneously with the actual news reporting with this shooting
That's exactly right. The unseemly haste certainly left the impression (whether true or not) that some people were leaping on this horrible tragedy. The fact that there's no actual link to Palin, herself, is what bothers me. One could have assumed at that point that the whackjob probably knew who she was, but in those early hours, no one knew if he was so ill that he'd never heard of Palin. I can't fully articulate how sick I think it is to make something up out of whole cloth as was done here. If the guy had freaked out because Bristol Palin is moving to Arizona, I could see a connection, tenuous though it might have been, but there was nothing. Like the Times Square bomber, it made sense to Bloomberg that it would be a Tea Party member, but in due course the fact that he was a Taliban-trained jihadist. I think this is going to be a PR disaster for the left. Their words, not the shooter's actions.

By the way, I saw that doctors are now saying that Rep. Giffords has a 100% expectation of survival. That is miraculous in my view, and I will continue to pray that she will swiftly become well enough to resume her place as the people's representative of Arizona.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I don't think it served the public well when blame and politicization happened almost simultaneously with the actual news reporting with this shooting. Even the Los Angeles Times had an article in the paper today about this:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-onthemedia-20110111,0,6863026.column

It was hard to grasp what was fact and what was opinion in those first few hours after this idiot began his rampage. At one point, most of the news outlets actually reported Gifford's death (which was in error) and began attributing her death to a politically motivated assassination. Perhaps it was. But nobody "knew" at that point, did they?

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/npr-editor-calls-reporting-of-rep-gabrielle-giffords-death-a-serious-and-grave-error_b47530

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/politics_begins_at_the_first_s.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/09/AR2011010904546.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11radio.html?_r=3&ref=media

winchester · Guru

I agree with both of zoosermom's two most recent posts.

A person who I respect for putting himself out there in the public eye to stand up for his convictions is Al Franken, even though I think he is blowhard partisan hack who is devoid of the capability of critical thought.

And Bogney, you flatter yourself if you think my comments are aimed specifically at you, except for this one: By failing to know the difference between murder and war you unwittingly help to prove zoosermom's points.

zoosermom · Senior Member

I wanted to make mention of something I read recently in a similar (although less dramatic context) about a mentally ill person in my community who went on a rampage and killed his parents after being released from an in-patient facility against their wishes. One of the mental health physicians said that (this is not verbatim, but is close): "our mental health priorities and funding have shifted from the care of the truly ill to the support of the dissatisfied" and that those choices would lead to deaths.

zoosermom · Senior Member

And zoosermom, when we talk about high on the offense scale, an entire post that does nothing but insult Bogney because s/he disagrees with you qualifies. I at least found it deeply offensive
I didn't insult Bogney because he disagrees with me. I explained why I thought he was either dishonest or out of touch. Not the same thing. There is no connection between anyone on the right, whether Palin or anyone else, except in the gleeful imaginations of the left. That is disgusting. Grotesque. The lack of knowledge about what is said or done on the left by those ON the left blows my mind.

You want reflection? Here is is. I'm very torn on the issue of gun rights. In theory, I hold them to be our birthright. But in practice, I just can't get around the fact that a mentally ill person can and did get a gun legally. Now, of course, I do know that illegal guns are the biggest problem and that a sane person with a gun could save a lot of lives in the right circumstances, but I have never seen a gun in person and just can't make the connection between the theoretical and the practical reality. In my heart I don't really understand why anyone would want to have a gun in their home, but on the other hand I do respect their right to, well, exercise their right. But how do we prevent the mentally ill from getting hold of one? What are our responsibilities to the mentally ill? To the rest of society? These are hard, painful questions and serious people can disagree, discuss, debate and inform. Serious people don't make things up out of whole cloth.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Some things should be above politican gamesmanship.

That's a hilariously non-reflective post, zoos. You may follow that rule, but your companions on the right clearly do not. We spent years hearing the nauseating refrain from Republicans that 9/11 implied we should do... whatever they had already been advocating. Rudy Guiliani was (and perhaps still is) incapable of uttering a sentence not mentioning the fall of the World Trade Center.

And zoosermom, when we talk about high on the offense scale, an entire post that does nothing but insult Bogney because s/he disagrees with you qualifies. I at least found it deeply offensive. If you value facts and information so much, perhaps you should have included some in the post.

I realize that Republicans are in a tough spot. Gabby Giffords complained that the tone of discourse was encouraging crazies. Her office was vandalized, presumably by crazies. She called out various people, including Sarah Palin, for specific acts she thought were encouraging crazies. And then a crazy person shot her. It looks bad for Republicans when someone predicts that their behavior will bring crazies out of the woodwork, and then a nut comes crawling out just as predicted. So of course Republicans babble on about individual responsibility, and free speech, blah blah blah. It's all politics and posturing. When the shoe's on the other foot, Republicans will be just as quick to blame Democrats for allegedly encouraging crazies.