How To Stop Crazy People

http://es-es.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=381427653495&topic=15656

Additionally, can any conservative say with a straight face that when it comes to the use of violent language, wearing loaded guns to political events, and threats to elected officials…….both sides are equally guilty?

Media, as they are doing right now, continue to pretend like they don't know that this type of violence, intimidation, thuggishness and incivility is coming, almost without exception, from the right.

And this lopsided situation, at least we've been told, is because of health care legislation, Obama taking guns away, a perceived socialist takeover, Obama is a racist, etc. etc. etc. GOP elected officials have even sympathized with the "anger" being expressed by GOP voters.

Since you brought it up, Reverend…both sides are not equally guilty. The left has ALWAYS been far more prone to violence. The examples are legion.

I completely reject your conflation of white supremacists with the conservative movement. They may be the same thing in your eyes, but….you are crazy.

I also reject your notion that "wearing a gun" is a call to violence. It's a symbolic show in favor of Second Amendment rights.

I haven't heard anyone on the right call for violence. You, being the nut you are, even turned Palin's crosshairs map into a veiled threat. That's waaay crazy.

Seek help. You've become radicalized by your zealous adherence to your ideology. You are unable to put things in context and you lack any semblance of rational perspective. Instead, you see right-wing boogeymen all around you. You're on a witchhunt just like the citizens of Salem, Mass were back in the day, and you are every bit as paranoid. Rather than admit your glaringly obvious errors in judgement and deal with people laughing at your off-the-wall posts, you have only ventured further out on the ledge.

As for "anger"…anyone who isn't angry at our government right now is a dumbass. We're being sold down the river. The way to deal with that anger is at the ballot box, not with a gun. That's the beauty of democracy. As long as we have it, we don't need violent revolutions to overthrow any oppressors that might come our way.

King, I largely agree. The man is mentally unstable. Did the current political environment lead to this? Hard to say. I suspect it only fueled his anger. I find it interesting that you only fault left wing media and commentators. I also note this on most Fox News comments. Do you really believe that the right wing is free and clear of politicizing events and news? I think both left and right are guilty. I know you must watch Glenn Beck. You don't find his personal attacks inflammatory at times. (I know they are just to rile his base and keep up his ratings.) I am a strong supporter of free speech. I do believe in calling people when they mis-use it. And yes, I believe Fox News and Glenn Beck need to be called to the carpet at times. Sorry you can't see that.

I see you didn't mention your buddy 2012 either

No, Tom, the right-wing politicizes things too, no question. But I don't see the right politicizing THIS thing, at least nowhere near to the extent the left is doing, and THIS thing is today's subject.

I don't agree with Beck all the time, though I don't watch him very often. I used to watch him more, but he gets pretty repetitive after a while. He's also too preachy for me. I seriously disagreed with him when he said Obama was a racist. That type of stuff irritated me to no end when it was said by the left about the Tea Party, so I didn't like it when Beck made the charge. Btw, Fox News called Beck out for saying that, and Beck apologized.

I can't be too critical of Fox News, because even though they start with a conservative viewpoint (isn't it about time ?), they do allow the opposing side to be heard. It isn't wall-to-wall partisan propaganda like MSNBC is at night. That's why every time I hear someone criticize Fox News, I immediately ask them about MSNBC. If they aren't even more critical of MSNBC's wall of liberal sound, I know I'm not dealing with an honest broker. In light of MSNBC, it's rather curious that the bias charges are thrown overwhelmingly at Fox. That says something right there.

Come to think of it, Fox News did jump the gun on that Shirley Sherrod story without having all the facts. They quickly rectified the situation and apologized, but that was poor journalism by them.

One more observation about Fox News – I find that the people most critical of Fox are the ones who don't watch Fox and who get their "news" about Fox from left-wing sources (I'm not saying you are this way. It's just a general observation).

Almost forgot to say, the political environment is ALWAYS divisive. If we start regulating political speech because of some nut, we may as well all shut up, because somebody is always going to be offended by something. If that wasn't the case, we'd only have one political party, and we'd all agree about everything. As things stand today, I don't think two parties is enough. I'd like to start a third, because I don't like either of the ones we have all that much.

I think we're missing a point here. The highly polarized atmosphere may well encourage nuts to start shooting. It might also happen at a Bears-Packers game, but we would be talking about a serious nutcase, as apparently Jared Whatsisname truly is. In searching speech for dangerous retoric – provocative stuff that hammers at the limit of protected speech – I would spend less time with imagery like cross-hairs and bullseyes and more with the overall implied respect or lack of for adversaries.

In the book/movie LITTLE BIGMAN the protagonists tells of his time living with an Indian tribe and in emphasizing their humanity tells us that their name for themselves waas 'the human beings'. I have also read that the San, one of the more primitive tribes still on Earth, call us and other tribes by a word that means in their language, "inedible meat".

In other words, 'we are human; nobody else is'. What I often find disturbing in this and other sources of political discourse, I seem to see an overall tendency to characterize one's opponents as inedible meat. This is an ancient and tried formula. In the old testament Moses could relay to us the words, "Thou Shalt not kill", and almost simutaneously set in motion the wars that would result in the slaughter of whatever populations of Canaanites were unlucky enough to captured by Joshua, also apparently sanctioned by God.

I remember the WWII publications that did the same with regard to Germans and Japs. It's probably ingrained in us to develop a disdain for our adversaries that charterizes them as 'meat', i.e. subhuman. Indeed those who survive probably have an ability to block out friendly images of their enemies more thoroughly than those who do not. There are archaelogical site in the American West and in various parts of Europe where the bones tell of a massacre of all inhabitants who allowed their stockade to be taken by the meat and thus became meat themselves.

The chimpanzees studied by Jane Goodall seemed to easily distinguish between themselves and meat although in their case the modifier 'inedible' was inapplicable.

Forget the imageries of bullseyes and crosshairs. These are what an English teacher would call poetic metaphor – admittedly of a rather low order. They are used regularly by sportand political writers and are a long way from being a problem. Some of you should go back and reread past postings and ask yourself if you were talking about 'our worthy opponents' or 'inedible meat'. The overal content should not be to reduce those who disagree with you to 'meat'. Republicans and Democrats have serious disagreements about how the country should be run and the most extreme versions of both are rather too emotional for my tastes, and not nearly rational enough.

One of the more disturbing aspects of this case is the victim could as easily have been "in the cross-hairs" of rabid lefties as of goose stepping right wingers. She was after all a middle-of-the-roader. Our boy Jared may not have been rational enough to have chosen a specific side as long as he could shoot somebody. If weever uncover evidence (unlikely) that he was put up to it, the putter-upper could just as easily be a Leninist cadreman trying to kick those blue democrats back into line.

King,
Take a look at M. Malkins site for an impressive list of left wing words and actions. Unfortunately the left as usual is condemming others for the very activity they engage in.
But they delude themselves into believing their actions and words are justified because they have the higher calling.

Some things never change. When Oswald ( or at least thought he was) shot JFK the media cried about the angry dialogue from the rightwing oppostion to Kennedy and tried to connect Oswald's actions to the right. The fact that his backround was solid left wing was beside the point.

You are a jackal. You feast on the dead and injured for poltical gain.

You wished he was a tea Party member. When it turns out he was a mentally disturbed person and there was no connection with the Tea Party, you try to force one on the situation. For political gain.

So your solution is to stop liberal media.
Is this a joke – and I supposed to laugh
After years of right wing hatred being spewed on the radio and on TV and now by politicians themselves and a democrat gets shot at you want the liberal media to stop.

The problem is loose gun laws in some states that allow mentally ill people to buy guns and that do not do proper background checks , and allow semi automatic killing machines to fire rounds of bullets. Responsible gun laws would have likely prevented this atrocity, just as they could have prevented Columbine . Politicians that cave in to the NRA are the problem.
Why is it legal for anybody to buy a semi automatic weapon ? WHY should that be a basic right – do we allow people to arm themselves with bombs too ? You dont need a semi automatic to go hunting. The technology of more dangerous wepons makes it so that this kind of damage is inevitable.

I have to disagree with you here, King. Part of the reason that we are becoming more and more vitriolic toward each other is because we are folding into a democracy rather than retaining our roots as a republic. As states are being stripped of self determination, it is forcing all of us to live under the same federal laws. We can no longer agree to disagree on most issues. Different laws for different people based on their different deeply held beliefs acted as a pressure relief valve for individuals within our nation. If someone believed abortion was murder, they could move to a state where abortion had laws that reflected their own belief. If someone wanted to live in a socialist utopia, they could move to a state that had high taxation and vice versa for those who wanted little government. It allowed good ideas an opportunity to bubble up and expand to other states if something worked while bad ideas withered on the vine. We still retain some remnants of a republic but it is quickly and relentlessly being usurped. Unfortunately, federal lawmakers and federal judges have overstepped their authority time after time, straying far afield from original intent to the point that we are pitted, one citizen against another, into a struggle for almost every large issue we hold dear that must necessarily end in a winner and a loser rather than fellow countrymen who can peacefully agree to disagree, everyone living life their own way, learning from each others' successes and failures along the way.

Andrea, guns are primarily for killing bad guys who are coming for your family or for stopping nuts who are trying to kill your local Congress member at meet and greets. Too bad there weren't a few more armed citizens at the event who could have reacted quickly. Hunting is just a good way of getting free range dinner. You are probably right about limits to weaponry, at least in public, but responsible gun laws mostly keep guns only from responsible citizens. Look at Mexico for the success or failure or gun laws. They have made it easy for the bad guys to take over whole cities. Instead, we need to get back to the basics. More Boy Scouts programs. More church activities for kids. More parental and local involvement. Basically, all the things liberals have been trying to destroy.

How many bad guys have been stopped ? Come on every year we have another home grown terrorist attack who gets away with it again and again.
Why ? because we allow them not just a gun or a rifle but a semi automatic weapon that can fire rounds and rounds. Why not ban all these types of weapons and just allow rifles. A rifles can still be used to protect your home if you are so inclined . Why can a nut case like him be allowed a weapon that can fire more bullets than what a normal policeman carries and is concealed?
Your argument is no longer holding up, history proving you guys wrong again and again .

You're a nut.

barackem,
I don't disagree with you. The 10th Amendment has been obliterated like many others in the Bill Of Rights. We are a Republic (in theory), but we are a democratic Republic. I was just trying to tell the Reverend that we don't need to engage in armed conflict among ourselves when we can use the ballot box instead. It is foreseeable, unfortunately, that the ballot box could become meaningless at some point due to government encroachment on our liberties. That's when the real problems will begin.

It appears Loughner's prime motivation may have been an obsession with Rep. Giffords based upon an encounter he had with her in 2007, not any type of political speech.

angryc,
I did look at Malkin's site just before I came here. She put together quite an impressive list of lefty hate and violence over the last few years. As Malkin said, "They asked for it. They got it". The phrase 'hoisted on their own petard' seems apt.

Andrea,
Much as I hate to interrupt a good rant, when did I say we should "stop liberal media" ??? I didn't say that at all. I said we should stop LISTENING to them on the subject of Loughner. That's because they are LYING THEIR BUTTS OFF, as I made clear.

Andrea,
About guns – What makes you believe outlawing guns will eliminate them ??? We have outlawed drugs, imprisoned lots of our citizens over drugs, and spent an enormous amount of money in a war on drugs, but you can still get drugs all over the place. When we outlawed alcohol, all that accomplished was to create a huge criminal syndicate. Why would guns be any different ? If guns were outlawed, the only people who wouldn't have guns would be the law-abiding citizens, who would then be defenseless against the thugs.

I'm onboard with not allowing convicted felons or the mentally ill to purchase guns at gunshops. That is sensible, though imperfect. If somebody wants to kill, they will find a way.

The "current" political "climate" owes more to the TP than any isolated "left" incidents that occurred 20+ yrs ago – I mean "let's take back our country back" (from who? Americans?), the whole "birther" morons (that is the only apt descriptions, sorry), the poster's of Obama in "tribal" gear or as the murderous "Joker," the screaming heads at congressional town meeting about health care (DEATH panels!!! Socialized medicine!!), the whole "reload" BS, people like Glen Beck (the only time I actually tuned in his show in '09 he was literally comparing Obama to Hitler– please give me a break), not to even include the various TP candidates comments on the campaign trail or the apparent inability of any GOP candidate to ever be labeled (horrors!) "moderate". The shooter is a nut no doubt, but you don't need a weatherman to tell you how the wind's blowing (oops, a phrase from that "lefty"" Bob Dylan).

The President and the Speaker of the House correctly addressed the issue with their comments.

DA King

I could be wrong but I beleive the Sheriff said political vitriol. He did not specify right wing or left wing. I think the problem is that too many of the leaders on both sides refuse to agree to disagree. We then progressively fall further and further into the pit of stupidity. The way the government has to work to actually govern well is to compromise.

For example, All the Republicans that signed the statement that they will never raise taxes. To me that takes away 1/2 of our ability to conquer our debt. Lets's say some one comes up with the great idea to lower corporate tax rates, but to pay for it we need to reduce the mortgage interest deduction to the first $100,000 in home value. Those Representatives would not be able to vote for this package because it would raise most peoples taxes.

Also, in the ring of stupidity, are the Democrats who say they will never cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. I think they are wrong because they have reduced their probability of controling our debt by half.

I didn't look at Malkin's site because there is no link so instead let's look at Dave's examples of Amy Bishop and Joe Stack

Amy Bishop was a professor at the University of Alabama who shot three of her colleagues to death after she was denied tenure. An unidentified family member(if it was indeed even a family member) told the Boston Herald that Amy Bishop was a far-left political extremist. There's very little proof that Bishop was a left wing extremist…..there is absolutly NO proof that anyone from the leftist media targeted Bishop's colleagues.

Joe Stack committed suicide by driving his plane into an IRS building because he blamed the IRS(and federal bailouts) for his troubles. I don't see anything in his suicide note that would indicate leftist extremist…..actually, it reads like something barakum would write. Haven't found anywhere where somebody in the leftist media calling for someone to attack the IRS.

I'd be interested in a link to Malkin…….something tells me that she spews the same garbage Dave does

I guess I forgot to mention the stop at King City

happy now?

I'm a nut because I condemned 2012's call to violence by putting a bullet in the head of Pelosie?

you're an idiot

Joe Stack's suicide note……http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18/joe-stack-statement-alleg_n_467539.html?page=2

Exactly King, Chicago outlawed guns. That worked out well for them.

You are right Cam. Then once the press gets ahold of the story who knows what to believe. I believe there are good points to some of the legislation passed in the past 2 years. However the media focuses on what? Division. Taking the things they disagree with and exploiting them so much that we never hear the truth. It is the same thing with the way Palin, intentions of the TEA Party treated and now this wacko murderer.
Maybe the press does need to be regulated. Maybe we do need to hear the opposing view.

I have a question, did his lawyer have him shave his head and eybrows because she is going for and insanity case or was he like that when he went to the meeting that day? What a piece of sh** she is if she did.

King you have a great point about drugs booze and guns. Killing the 2nd amendment won't help. The drug dealers and illegals carry guns all the time, without having a license of course. Do the libs think when people are murdered in drive-by shootings in the hood that those guns are registered? Do they even realize the fire power of those weapons? Because someone says they are illegal, I promise you the drug dealers and thugs will still have them and the innocents will be unarmed. For Gods sake the make their livings selling illegal drugs.

The press does not need to be regulated, which would be the path to tyranny. While the drumbeat seems too loud at times in regard to coverage of issues like this tragedy or people like Palin, other sources of information are readily available and people are turning toward those sources in ever-increasing numbers. Much of the media have forsaken the people's trust, but that's why those same media are steadily going bankrupt.

Bogie, the tenth amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means something to most Americans. The 'people' means individuals. Many seem to believe there is no difference whether individuals or states or localities retain their own authority or if all of that power will be given to some bureaucrat thousands of miles away. As the federal government takes over more and more of our economy, our businesses, our health care, our housing, our education, our retirements, our social network, etc., it means by default that we lose individual and local and state power to decide for ourselves. It is especially troubling when the federal government has the power, for example, to decide which car dealers stay open and which are shut down with no compensation based largely on political connections. Or when health care is enacted, not based on rule of law, but on the fiat decisions of the Health and Human Services Secretary.

How far do you want to go in trusting central authority to make decisions based on best interests of 'the people' rather than personal and political interests of those making the decisions? For those who are for big government takeover, just remember that your political party won't be in power forever. Will the people who are so anxious for Obama to make fiat laws be as excited if it is Sarah Palin as president somewhere down the road? Or for Michelle Bachmann to have authority over who gets health care exemptions and who doesn't?

Early in Obama's presidency, there was an attempt to block Fox News from access. It would have succeeded if other news organizations hadn't objected. Maybe that made sense to those who don't take a GOP perspective, especially since all the old print and television news sources still have an inbred, New York Times based perspective. Considering that the country is still center right, will the Fox News detractors be as happy if the so called mainstream outlets start using the Drudge Report as their central news source and a GOP president backed by a GOP Congress tries to ban MSNBC from access?

Some seem to think that a centralized government is a great thing. Most of those people are currently left wing based on a federal government that has been largely left wing. There is nothing to guarantee that left wing policies won't be replaced by right wing policies as power continues to flow to the federal government. The only thing that can be guaranteed is that whoever has expanded authoritarian power will use it more and more for their own gain just as 'the people' will have less and less power to stop them.

Although my guess is that Obama was born in Hawaii, it doesn't take a forensic scientist to recognize there is a major blind spot in the evidence on this issue that only Obama could put to bed by authorizing either the state of Hawaii to release the long form certificate or the hospital to release their records. It is ridiculous that the hospital where Obama was born is debatable and under lock and key. That is hardly personal information.

I voted for Obama. Admittedly, it was as much a vote against the GOP meant to shake them from their Dem Lite mentality as it was to elect a Democratic president. But the historic nature of this presidency was almost too good and too close within our grasp to pass up. We had a black candidate who seemed to offer hope of reconciling our society. I honestly thought he would govern along the lines of the post '94 GOP revolution Bill Clinton. I thought he would help bring the black community into the mainstream. We are not blue states, we are not red states, we are Americans. Sounded good. Most importantly, it was an attempt to go over the head of the Democrats and people like the Rev and Andrea who constantly try to send the message to black children that they are hated, that whitey is out to get them, and basically that they might as well not even try since they supposedly will have to work twice as hard to get half as far. Nobody given that message is going to be excited about engaging in the system. If I was given that message my whole life, I would probably drop out, join a gang, and try to destroy the system. It is obvious that with demographic changes in our society, if the Democrats are successful in continuing their balkanized, stay-with-your-own-kind mentality it is just a short matter of time until this country eats itself alive.

Sadly, once elected, it became obvious that what Obama meant was there would be all blue states based on moving power to Washington. Rather than moving the black community into the mainstream, we would all move into the organized community that has trapped so many in the black commuunity. Rather than becoming a color blind society based on content of character rather than color of skin, anyone who opposed an Obama policy was called a racist, along with anyone who talked about content of character or other character and human issues.

A few months into 2009, I was shocked to hear a world leader, President Lula of Brazil, use racist stereotypes to say that the problems in the world were due to white men with blue eyes. I was even more shocked to see our new unifying president treat Lula like he was his favorite rock star the next week, high fiving him, annd calling him 'his man' and the most popular politician in the world. Of course there was the Beer Summit and other divisive stereotyping along the way that made it obvious that unity was not going to be sought by this president, either for racial reconciliation or for subduing the class warfare rhetoric. Hopefully, this will be the first and last president who ever again calls on certain races or ethnicities for support as this president did in the last election.

Bottom line, this president is not the unifier who we were promised when first elected. Maybe the most obvious example of a situation where this president could help unify us would be over the birther issue. It would take all of thirty seconds for him to put this issue to bed. As someone who collects historical memorabilia, provenance is of utmost importance. If someone offers an item for sale, proving an item's authenticity might mean the difference between whether something sells for a thousand dollars or a million dollars. If someone offered an item, saying that someone has seen the proof of authenticity, the first comment would be "show it". If they say they aren't allowed because they don't have authorization to show the proof, the second comment would be " Is it buried under 50 feet of ice at the North Pole or something? Get whoever is able to give the authorization to give it". If they respond with " No, it's not buried but that person won't take 30 seconds to authorize release", most would laugh in their face and walk away totally unsatisfied. That is where this issue stands. Only one person who can give authorization, and only one person won't do it. It is vile that an American president would allow this issue to fester, especially a president who was elected with almost no experience based on a message of unity.

Walter! Just remember that when you put that sign up in your room wth GWB with a cap in his head! I did that to make a point! But those were ok! You know by your double standards!

http://mediamatters.org/research/201101110003

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/gun_rhetoric_2010.php?ref=fpblg

Okay so we compromise – DO we need to have multiple round semi machine guns ?
Do we need guns that can shoot off 30 bullets before reloading? 2 things we can do to stop shooting or reduce the damage
out law semi automatic multiple magazines or what ever they are called.
2. tag each bullet with a code so we know where it was bought and who bought it
We can also raise the price on bullets and guns so they are hard to obtain.
The gun man was stopped when he went to re load. Less people could have died if he wasn't able to fire off so many bullet. Why do we need such killing machines? I personally don't buy your stuff about having guns stops these crimes because it isn't so . But I am willing to compromise to out law these types of weapons.

okay I missed that in your post.
So you dont think the right wing anger level is a problem today? I went to a health reform meeting . I saw some real crazies and their anger level was off the charts, so much so I felt a but uncomfortable being there. And I don't believe the anger even has to do all with health care reform – it is the same "take back my country crowd" which is code for take back my country from a black Muslim socialist . "
If by some small chance this killer, never heard any of the tea parties rhetoric , never saw Sarah Palin's bulls eye map and never heard any of the chants about killing or shooting and was in his own vacuum and just decided to go out and shoot a congresswomen because she worked for the government – the lunatics who do go to political meetings with guns one day will act out somewhere some time. And we better not act shocked when it happens cause this was our warning.

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

On Joe Stack:
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2010/02/joe-stack-was-left-leaning-marxist.html

That's why lefties say to this day that Oswald was not involved.

Right-wing anger, left-wing anger. There is no difference. People get heated about politics. In my lifetime, I've witnessed far more violence and screaming and shouting from left-wing groups than right-wing groups. It's not even a close call, but I don't think it ever even occurred to me to tell left-wingers to stop voicing their opinions, as the left is attempting to do to the right over Loughner (even though there is no evidence right-wing speech prompted Loughner to act).

Bogie,
The left was using the "let's take our country back" theme TWO YEARS AGO. There were numerous examples of left-wingers calling for Bush to be assassinated, and he was called every vicious name in the book. You must have a very short memory.

I agree with you about the birthers.

Camackey,
The Sheriff mentioned talk radio, didn't he ? We all know who he was talking about. The Sheriff was voicing his opinion, not stating any facts. He admitted this when he was interviewed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News. In addition, the latest news indicates the Sheriff may have had many previous contacts with Loughner, so he may be trying to cover his own rear.

This is nothing more than an attempt by the left to politicize a tragedy, and it is shameful.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/08/09/video-republican-tea-party-astroturfers-exposed/

right wing organized effort

The Tea Party movement was as grassroots as it gets. It spread via local website groups and internet word of mouth. There were a few monied backers, as there are in any movement. Maddow is a dolt.

Due to my work, I have attended close to 100 events in which U.S. congress members or state governors were present or spoke to the public. I don't think I've ever been to one in which the Sheriff's office didn't have deputies posted in very visible places. And I don't live in a "divided" district, as the lemming media now characterizes Giffords' district. The sheriff is an incompetent.

Now that it's clear this guy was far from being influenced by the right wing and the lefties have stuck their foots in their butts again, the talking point is becoming "yeah, but the next one will be." Unbelievable, but when you've got deadend followers like Andrea, I guess you can pull it off.

from the humble non-libertarian…….."His fundamental complaint is the exploitation of the poor and working classes by the ruling class,…."

Joe Stack was a small business owner that felt that he got screwed by the federal government…….from being screwed on his taxes to the feds preferential treatment to big corporations and the airlines at the expense of small businesses.

who writes like that here? Barakum does……..I doubt that you would call barakum a leftist socialist

I just don't understand your and ac's argument…….you poo poo the suggestion that O'Rielly's words influenced Roeder, that Beck's words influenced Williams and Palin's words influenced Loughner, and then you turn around and say liberals do the same thing. If you believe that lberals words influence people then it would only stand to reason that O'Rielly, Beck and Palins' words could influence people.

as far as Stack and Bishop……..in the case of the murder of Tiller , the attempted attack on the Tides Foundation and the shooting of Rep. Giffords…….there were 3 parts to those equations…..there was O'Rielly, Roeder and Tiller, Beck, Williams and the Tides and Palin, Loughner and Gifford. In the case of Bishop it was Bishop and her victims…where is the third part of the equation…..a leader of the liberal movment calling for the attack on Bishop's collegues? In the case of Stack….it was Stack and the IRS…..where's the third part of the equation where a leader of the liberal movment calls for attacking the IRS?

just sayin'

"The Tea Party movement was as grassroots as it gets."

now that's hilarious

come on 2012….you trotted out the GWB bullshit only AFTER I called you out.

you're a douchebag!!!!!!!

Pretty lame, Tbomb. The original DailyKos post said it was "targeting" Giffords, and the language at the bottom of the Kos post, which is what the bullseye image was pointing to, said "Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district"

DailyKos both "targeted" Giffords and put a "bullseye" on her, the same thing Palin did.

Media Matters is some piece of work. I don't know how they look themselves in the mirror.

I'm an idiot, yet I prove you wrong time and again. I guess that makes you a sub-idiot.

Thrilled.

"..yet I prove you wrong time and again."

you crack me up

I see the Tea Party Express in their fundraiser/answer to Giffords shooting uses the photoshopped picture with a picture of Giffords and a bullseye on it and of course no explaination.

hhhmmmm……if the original page didn't have that on it why would the Tea Party Express put it on there?

probably thought it would bring in more money(actually it probably will)

just sayin'

Andrea, When you went to the health care meeting were you able to tell which people were the "real crazies" and which ones were the concerned librals?
King, the first step in stopping the crazies would be to take the Revs computer away fom him(just kidding Rev–my poor attempt at humor)

No offense taken, Angry. Kinda' funny, actually.

I wanted to mention how much I disagree with Barackem's broader perspective. So much of it is fact-challenged…….but it's the woe-is-the-white-man feel that I think goes against my grain the most.

The problems of our nation have not been created by government programs which give the less fortunate a modest helping hand.

Da King

I'm not going to argue this point anymore. All we are doing is degenerating into words that won't help the country and won't heal the wounds. He probably should not have said what he said as the Sheriff, but I think I can excuse any misstep he might have made in having to respond to a shooting that killed a friend and wounded another friend.

Yes, the sheriff might have had contact with the shooter, but unless a person is showing clear and definite signs of a severe mental illness (suicide, conversations with himself etc.) he had no authority to hold the shooter. Just like the Park ranger that picked him up for running the red light a few hours before the shooting had no authority to hold him. I think everyone who has come in contact with this person is doing woulda, shoulda, coulda on how they handled their dealings with this man, but again as I stated before he chose to do this no matter what his reasons. Who knows what caused him to react this way.

And there's the race card.

Sorry, the race card was tossed on the table by Barackem. Reread his comments.

Nice try, Rev. Race is an issue in this country and needs to be discussed. That is far from using it to divide us into never ending racial categories or forcing group identity onto free individuals.

Personally, I couldn't care less how a person destroys their own life but when adults who have influence over innocent kids try to pass their sickness on to them, they need to be called on it, no different than a child forced to watch their father beat their mother on a regular basis.

It is hard enough when a kid is fed the lie his whole life that the greedy rich are stealing from the poor. Not only do poor kids not have adult examples of how to get ahead but that foolhardy assessment leaves them discouraged and diverts them away from looking at successful people for examples that would move them farther ahead in life. It leaves them with no explanation other than "We are all just feathers in the breeze. Some people are just more fortunate than others." Sorry, but I would never let my kids get away with saying that. I care far too much about them to let such childish foolishness stand. Even a ten year old Boy Scout knows better. Don't ever try to make the case that you want better for the poor or you would be the first to point toward things that a person can do to change their life.

It is a double whammy when a kid is told that if they are a black they are hated, or that America is the US of KKK or "God Damn America" or 'conservatives have never done a goddamn thing for blacks" or other filth that spews from your keyboard on a regular basis. Don't ever try to make the case that you want better for black kids in this country. Your willingness to pass your sickness on belies any good will for the next generation. All you want is what most sick people want. To spread your sickness.

Be as miserable as you want but stop taking innocent kids down with you, fool.

the point MediaMatters was trying to convey was that the original Kos diary DID NOT have a picture of Giffords, DID NOT have a picture of a bullseye and DID NOT say it was targeting Giffords specificly.

it was the republican tea party propaganda wing that photoshopped Giffords picture and the bullseye onto that page

when you look at the doctored webpage there is no mentioned it had been altered.

straight up republican tea party propaganda

MediaMatters told you that, walt?

Hahahaha.

told me what?

Reverend,
When you dismiss everything someone says with "woe-is-the-white-man" rather than engage in the discussion, you have played the race card in order to stop the discussion. That is done to imply the other person is a racist, and as such, not worth addressing. That's what you did.

His obsession with Giffords began as a result of politcal speech shared between the two.

Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy.

"We all knew who he was talking about."

Again, either because conservatives have some new form of ESP mind reading powers…..or because of the obvious……AM hate-radio talkers are primarily conservative.

No Palin or media complicity, the shooter was insane…..so, it's the sheriff's fault.

He said stuff that made conservatives mad.

That is the discussion. In fact, that's the juice behind the Tea Party, separatist movement…..the movement which plans to eliminate several Constitutional amendments. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) now says that child-labor laws are a violation of the Constitution!

What we've been watching and hearing since Obama became president is based on the realization by white conservatives that their control of America is slowly losing it's grip. That strikes emotional fear in minds of many people. That's another reason why immigration issues are so volatile with the same folks.

Barackem…and you, as well….have championed this phony "racism against whites"…..you did so in the firefighter's case in New England, you did so in the arrest of the black professor incident.

It's the story which America cannot be informed about because rich white folks who control corporate media will not allow it.

I'm all for more adult-children programs which uplifts aspirations….all liberals are. But for Barackem to portray the current programs to help the less fortunate and the poor, of which minorities make up a disproportionate share, as soul-destroying identity politics is beyond being reasonable, in my opinion..

I know how to read and use discernment. What I said about "woe-is-the-white-man" is a fitting representation of many of Barackem's comments. I think Barackem is intelligent, articulate, and engaging….and he has every right to his opinions and views. As do I.

There is no such thing as the 'white' race to begin with. That classification is a convenient way of saying that different people from different ethnicities, different languages, different cultures, and different countries of origin assimilated into one country under a Constitution that guaranteed individual rights, responsibilities, and freedoms. Where I live in California a person would be hard pressed to even figure out what so called 'race' half of the population comes from. Some who you call 'white' have darker skin than others you would call brown or black. Some of those darker skinned 'whites' happen to be new immigrants who still speak limited English and still know only customs from their countries of origin while some who you would characterize as brown or black only know English and are deeply enmeshed in mainstream America. "Race' would be no more defining than hair color or eye color if fools like you would start letting innocent children grow up without forcing your crap on their shoulders, just as hair or eye color could conversely become a defining characteristic to divide us if fools like you decided to use that as your focus instead of race.

It is ridiculous to tell innocent children that "rich white folks will not allow Americans to be informed". Grow up, fool. Take responsibility for your life and expect other adults to do the same. Every child deserves that from their parent. Are you as ready to blame rich white folks for a man beating his wife? Why would you expect less from a man getting out and providing for their children no matter how long it takes or how hard it is, or a woman creating a safe nest for her children? Even wild animals with pea brains understand that basic concept. This is basic stuff that has nothing to do with some 'rich white man' conspiracy. Stop talking such foolishness if you really care about a better world for the next generation.

You think he's handled this young psychopath well, and shouldn't post security for national politicians when they make public appearances, I guess.

Hahahahahahaha.

What I'm getting from the last two comments is this:

Barackem wants us to get beyond racial divides.

Reverend wants to keep the racial blame game going as long as possible.

Winner by a landslide – Barackem.

In the time it took you to navigate the keyboard to generate this pablum, a constructive response could have been contrived in an educated mind. I found your vapid collection of ignorance by typing "stop the crazies" into Google. 

Closed, atrophied minds like yours, and the words they produce, are protected by the Constitution. They also work against its larger purpose. Citizens of this country have an obligation to work towards keeping this country sound, and your boring and destructive divisiveness makes you one of the country's village idiots and borderline traitors. Please, take no offense. That is not an wanton insult. It's as factual as anything that won't be featured in this wasted opportunity you offer here. Grow up. Or, better yet, grow. Your script is tired, plagiarized, outdated and out of touch. Who are you talking to, old man? Those in the wings who will see this country through are torn between ignoring you and laughing at you. They will have their views, and they're not buying yours. 

You seem stumped, Wiseup.

larry, I'm worried….you didn't trot out your homophobia and insinuate wiseup was gay….or a racist

you OK buddy?

A meaningless, unfocused, random comment linked to a post that is over 8 months old.   Hmm… This is either a script bot (most likely), a community organizer, or an out of work liberal.  At least the message in fortune cookies usually has a point – in contrast to rambling assemblage of words here.

In most cases there's not much difference between a script bot, a community organizer or an out of work liberal, is there? 

It looks like someone in Arizona must have given Loughner permission to use the computer room.

btw, does anyone know if Da King is ok? I wouldn't blame him for taking time off from the crazies but am definitely missing his regular dose of common sense.

more likely carrying water for the republican tea party propagandists probably wore him down

and here I thought we were having a breakthrough here…..first we had not relevant talking nice to Rev and then 2012 agreeing with Rev it was the banksters fault and larry not trotting out his homophobia and racism

just sayin'