[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you had to guess, what would be his common political ideology? Others might be able to leave it at that, but you couldn't. The article you cited referenced none of those things that would put him in stark contrast with the Tea Party; things he specifically wanted you to know about himself such as his interests in flag burning, mein kampf, the communist manifesto, and strong feeling against god and religion. Where in your article did you get the whole tea party reference anyway?

I didn't get this from the article, I got it from the quote from her Dad taken shortly after the incident.

I'm aware that communism, socialism, and other isms that involve government control are on the extreme spectrum of the left. As I understand it on the extreme right you have libertarianism and anarchy, which leads to police states. I don't think that Conservatives in America are interested in anarchy, and I think we are miles away from Communism and Socialism. Therefore, I'm not a fan of either extreme end of the spectrum, the best place to be is somewhere in the middle. I think America's version of the political center is to the right of where most other countries in the world are, just because we are uniquely committed to the ultimate ideal of freedom.

[freudling]

This is just alarmist nonsense. It doesn't threaten democracy. It was 1 lonely, estranged young man. With your lax gun laws, this isn't the first time there was a mass slaying in the US involving guns.

I am really sorry for her and everyone else who was hurt. I'm sadly... like others I am sure... just so desensitized when I hear about this stuff in the States, because people get shot up there all the time. I don't care what her status was. It comes down to being a human. Everyone counts.

[BadKosh]

My condolences to those who lost loved ones because of this nutjob. I hope he gets the chair (without wetting the sponge). Assassinations and violence have no place in politics. Right now we don't have anything but assumptions and conjecture about what that nutjob was thinking. He seems like a pea brain.

[lpkmckenna]

The sherrif of Tuscon said exactly what I said:

Though most officials did not speculate about what might have provoked the attack, Dupnik offered an emotional indictment of the state of political discourse.

"The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, I think Arizona has become sort of the capital, we have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry," he said. "There's reason to believe that this individual might have a mental issue, and I think that people who are unbalanced might be especially susceptible to vitriol."

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by freudling 

This is just alarmist nonsense. It doesn't threaten democracy. It was 1 lonely, estranged young man. With your lax gun laws, this isn't the first time there was a mass slaying in the US involving guns.

Or, like people getting blown to bits by extremists. Blame the PERSON not the devices used.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Or, like people getting blown to bits by extremists. Blame the PERSON not the devices used.

Though he has a point the gun laws in the US are a little to weak but its the person not the device. In the end no matter how tough the laws are if a person wants a gun they will get it and use it.

[Athens]

Im interested in knowing more about the shooter. Did they have a violent history, mental condition or any signs that had been seen but ignored before. It could easily been a person that feel through the cracks of the social nets. If so maybe addressing that would be a more pro-active thing to help prevent this stuff. Any one willing to go this far to prove a point has something wrong with them. Better screening methods to detect people like this might be the best out come of this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The sherrif of Tuscon said exactly what I said:

Quit trying to shut down speech you dislike. He didn't say anything remotely close to what you said and had he said what you've said, he'd be guilty of very irresponsible rhetoric. Given the shooter's display on You Tube, he was a far cry from the God-fearing, American-exceptionalist message of Palin and the Tea Party. The crosshairs she used had to be pulled down due to the fact that she gets more attention from the antagonist left than is warranted. And speaking of having to beef up one's security...

If this shooter is truly that worked up over the kind of political discourse that has occurred in this country since its inception (i.e. battleground states/districts) that he'd abuse the gun rights laws this congresswoman defends to attempt to kill her and succeed in killing a Federal judge appointed by Bush, God help us all. He was mental.

The "messages" being cited as anything more than correlative to the actions of a psycho is a feeble attempt to silence speech you don't appreciate.

[ebuddy]

As long as we're using this tragedy for a cheap partisan dig against the despicable message du jour; I blame Obama. Had he not referred to Republicans as "the enemy" with regard to immigration policy, a Bush-appointed Federal judge would not have been killed by the psycho who is susceptible to vitriolic rhetoric.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Quit trying to shut down speech you dislike. He didn't say anything remotely close to what you said and had he said what you've said, he'd be guilty of very irresponsible rhetoric. Given the shooter's display on You Tube, he was a far cry from the God-fearing, American-exceptionalist message of Palin and the Tea Party. The crosshairs she used had to be pulled down due to the fact that she gets more attention from the antagonist left than is warranted. And speaking of having to beef up one's security...

Based on the few examples of opinion at the guy's YouTube site, he doesn't appear to be the type of person that I'd imagine to be influenced to take Palin's crosshairs map literally. However, are you saying it was just coincidence that the map was taken down yesterday and not a realization that it was perhaps inappropriate given the circumstances?

[Dork.]

There's an interesting "article" here from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us...ics/09bai.html

(It's not labeled "News Analysis", like most of their op-eds masquerading as news, but probably should be).

This article could have been written by a liberal Glenn Beck. Check this out:

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.

The "article" correctly points out that Liberals have not been immune to hyperbole for political purposes, and directly cites the notion from a few years ago that related Bush directly to Hitler, or that he orchestrated the September 11th attacks. With both sides getting so polarized and playing to the extremes in their bases to get heard, the writer wonders if we are heading into a period of violence in the country, similar to the 1960's when several political leaders are assassinated before things died down. It is silent on the matter, however, on why shots only tend to fly when things are happening that the Right doesn't like.

I have my own (decidedly non-PC) opinion on why it tends to be Liberals who get shot in these instances: when comparing the extremes on both sides, the loony Right tends to have more guns than the loony Left, and they know how to use them. When the Liberals got upset at Bush for invading Iraq, they got all indignant and staged mass protests, thinking they actually mattered. The loony Right prefers to protest by using the Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo boxes, but sometimes they get the order confused.

(I am being a little over-the-top here, just to stimulate discussion, which I suppose makes me as bad as Glenn Beck. I am shocked by this tragedy and feel for the victims, while at the same time marveling at a world where someone can get shot in the manner she did and still survive....)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Quit trying to shut down speech you dislike.

The hell you on about now?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He didn't say anything remotely close to what you said and had he said what you've said...

He said exactly what I said: the shooter is probably crazy, and crazy people are influenced by violent rhetoric. Learn to read.

...he'd be guilty of very irresponsible rhetoric.

You two-face hypocrite! I condemn Palin and the Tea Party for irresponsible rhetoric and you attack me. Then you go and accuse the sherrif of irresponsible rhetoric. So which is it: does irresponsible rhetoric exist in your mind or not?

Given the shooter's display on You Tube, he was a far cry from the God-fearing, American-exceptionalist message of Palin and the Tea Party.

This, gentlemen, is called the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Besides, I didn't claim he was a Tea Party'er or God-fearing American, or the Queen of Sheba. Crazy peeple are never consistent in their crazy flights of fantasy. The ideology isn't the issue. It's the violent rhetoric that's relevant.

If a crazy person sits around listening to their winngut uncle go on about needing to gut a few Libs and hang Obama, don't you think the crazy person is gonna be influenced? The rhetoric of the Tea Party is nothing but the non-stop rantings of wingnut uncles. That's the political environment the Tea Party is encouraging, and this is the result.

The crosshairs she used had to be pulled down due to the fact that she gets more attention from the antagonist left than is warranted.

She's a lightning rod for controversy because she barks stupidity on a regular basis. It has nothing to do with any mythical "antagonist left."

If this shooter is truly that worked up over the kind of political discourse that has occurred in this country since its inception...

What the hell is wrong with you? He's not worked up "over" the political discourse, he's worked up "by" it. Big effing difference.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As long as we're using this tragedy for a cheap partisan dig against the despicable message du jour; I blame Obama. Had he not referred to Republicans as "the enemy" with regard to immigration policy, a Bush-appointed Federal judge would not have been killed by the psycho who is susceptible to vitriolic rhetoric.

Nice try. The Tea Party is pissed at him because he allowed a $32 million lawsuit against an Arizona rancher to proceed. The case was brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. He and his family had to be protected by the US Marshals for a month because hundreds of death threats were made.

[lpkmckenna]

Micheal Moore (I'm not a fan) made the following observation on twitter:

If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking.

No kidding.
And Keith Oblermann (I am a fan) has condemned the violent discourse: "We need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently."

If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bullseye targets on 20 Representatives including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics, she must be dismissed from politics - she must be repudiated by the members of her own party, and if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling, and they must in turn be dismissed by the responsible members of their own party.

If Jesse Kelly, whose campaign against Congresswoman Giffords included an event in which he encouraged his supporters to join him firing machine guns, does not repudiate this, and does not admit that even if it was solely indirectly, or solely coincidentally, it contributed to the black cloud of violence that has envellopped our politics, he must be repudiated by Arizona's Republican Party.

If Congressman Allen West, who during his successful campaign told his supporters that they should make his opponent afraid to come out of his home, does not repudiate those remarks and all other suggestions of violence and forced fear, he should be repudiated by his constituents and the Republican Congressional Caucus.

If Sharron Angle, who spoke of "Second Amendment solutions," does not repudiate that remark and urge her supporters to think anew of the terrible reality of what her words implied, she must be repudiated by her supporters in Nevada.

I'd never heard of Allen West before. Fnck that guy. Seriously, he deserves his mouth repeatedly washed out with c0ck for that kind of rhetoric.

[besson3c]

I get the argument that the crosshairs were supposed to simply be markers on the map, but why not just change them to stars, red circles, push pins, ponies, anything else? It's not a big deal, I don't get why the Palin crew has seemingly defended their use of crosshairs given the political risks of being associated with incidents like this, and the ease in which this can be avoided while still getting their point across.

Then again, this is not the only somewhat bizarre political calculation of theirs.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

By whom? Anyone other than left blogs?

Reading Twitter and believing what either side says politically at the moment is despicable.

I didn't read any of that until I went to Salon. And then, I expected it.

Has anyone considered that if he'd just been a Muslim doctor in the US Army the media would have clamped down on all of the guy's personal info already. As it is, he got a middle name faster than you can say "insh allah".

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'd never heard of Allen West before. Fnck that guy. Seriously, he deserves his mouth repeatedly washed out with c0ck for that kind of rhetoric.

Way to tone it down, buddy.

[Chongo]

Me thinks the FBI will talking to the Kos

[Chongo]

duplicate post

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We don't know the motivations of the gunman yet, but their is speculation that he was some tea party nut.

It turns out he was a left wing liberal nut.

Jared Loughner, Alleged Shooter in Gabrielle Giffords Attack, Described by Classmate as "Left-Wing Pothead"

Jared Loughner, Alleged Shooter in Gabrielle Giffords Attack, Described by Classmate as "Left-Wing Pothead" - Phoenix News - Valley Fever

[freudling]

I agree, I do blame the person, not just the device. It's just that the US has the highest incidence of gun violence of anywhere in the developed world, and very lax gun laws in comparison.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Just when you think the lefties can't sink any lower, the usual suspects NEVER FAIL to do so anyway.

So the "let's not jump to conclusions coalition" RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE spins away desperately to tie this having anything whatsoever to do with Bush, the Tea Party, Palin, Talk Show hosts, any/everything else they're afraid of and try to blame everything on, rather than just admit the guy is just a nut with no clear political ideology. (In fact, if all the net chatter is to be believed, could probably more easily be pegged as a lefty moonbat than a conservative.) Nope, that would have been the intelligent thing to do, but then you wouldn't end up looking like total nitwits... again, and gee, what fun would that be?

If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking.

What a jackass.

He's actually asking (in his usual STUPID, ignorant, via a completely false comparison way) what would happen if a Muslim did something completely innocuous, like posting some image on the internet, vs. actually inciting violence?

Yeah, that just NEVER happens! We've got absolutely NO real-world examples to look at of Muslims inciting violence FOR REAL, or knowing exactly what would happen when other Muslims carry out that violence FOR REAL!

Gee, I wonder what would happen if a Muslim thought he was setting off a bomb in a crowd of innocent people at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony, even after being told that tons of innocent children would be present?

Gee, I wonder what would happen if a Muslim with a history of weird Islamic rantings shot up a military base shouting "Allah Akbar"?

Gee, I wonder what would happen if a Muslim tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square?

Gee, I wonder what would happen if Muslims were caught plotting to blow up synagogues and shoot down airliners full of innocent passengers?

Gee, I wonder what would happen if Muslims were caught plotting to blow up fuel lines leading to JFK airport?

On and on and on and on...

Would Michael Moore still be a clueless fat d-bag that would do nothing but make up excuses for it, pretend it didn't happen and/or try and mount brain-dead moral-equivalence arguments about it rather than actually address the real issue? Just asking.

[mduell]

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

[Dork.]

Actually, I think Moore is right here, for once. If a Muslim leader had posted a similar map, with similar imagery over congressional districts, and a similar thing happened to one of the congressmen in those districts, you can bet that he would be in jail right now, and whatever organization he led would be dissected for terrorist ties, no matter what his intentions actually were.

I don't think for a minute that Palin actually condones violence. But the tone she sets in her communications can be easily misconstrued by people spoiling for a fight. As a public media figure (she's no longer really a politician), she needs to take responsibility for her words, even when they have unintended consequences. Certainly if she ever really wants to hold public office again, she needs to learn how to do that.

And the political affiliation of the shooter doesn't really matter here. The Congresswoman's office has been threatened before due, in part, to the unintended consequences of comments from folks like Palin. I don't think Palin should get a pass based on which side of the crazy the shooter comes from.

(Although if he does turn out to be a hard lefty, I guess I was wrong about the assertion that only the loony Right has guns. I thought the Left reserved violence for when the environment (or cute animals) were threatened.)

[screener]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The hell you on about now?He said exactly what I said: the shooter is probably crazy, and crazy people are influenced by violent rhetoric. Learn to read.

Exactly.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Actually, I think Moore is right here, for once. If a Muslim leader had posted a similar map, with similar imagery over congressional districts, and a similar thing happened to one of the congressmen in those districts, you can bet that he would be in jail right now, and whatever organization he led would be dissected for terrorist ties, no matter what his intentions actually were.

Bullshit. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

It is telling how off the charts totalitarian that leftists often reveal themselves to be though. Whatever map is posted on someone's website somewhere has absolutely SQUAT to do with the actions of some nutball.

Meanwhite, actual examples of Muslim clerics preaching hatred and inciting violence are all over the place, yet in a free society, one can't be thrown in jail for merely expressing unpopular beliefs. Maybe in lefty-loon fantasyland, which as I say, if given the way of many lefties would equates to a totalitarian shithole where people would be arrested for some imaginary connection to a real event based on what's on posted on their website, but once again, I'm talking IN REALITY.

As always, Michael Moore is a nutjob in his own way that appeals to people with the mentality less than that of the average hamster, and he adds nothing but more mindless stupidity to the subject. As it turns out, using the same moonbat standards that want to desperately drag Palin or whoever else into this, Moore himself is equally to blame. There's no more proof that the shooter wasn't responding to some hack moonbat drivel off his website, or Daily Kook or whichever other lefty-loon rag, as anything posted by Palin. Gee, imaginary 'guilt by association' sure is fun! You can simply make up a way to blame anyone for anything that someone else does. How productive!

I don't think for a minute that Palin actually condones violence.

Palin has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of this, any more than whatever fatass Moore has posted at his website has anything to do with this.

Bringing up Palin, Bush, some talk show host you disagree with, or anyone else OTHER than the shooter and whatever craziness was in his head is just more desperation.

[freudling]

When is someone going to bring up Britney Spears...

Man things are tense on MacNN these days. People are egging each other on more than not. A lot of garbage being posted. Seems to be the same group of people instigating things.

Anyway, I hope Giffords gets better.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Does anyone think for a minute that Britney Spears condones violence?

Actually, if we're gonna blame people for this based on imaginary 'guilt by association', I blame Lady Gaga.
I know less about her than the average moonbat actually knows about Sarah Palin, but her stage name is annoying and I'm going to guess her website is annoying enough to incite random nutballs to violence.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I agree on Michael Moore's idiocy, Lady Gaga's inciting violence, the Regular American Peoples staging a ku to replace their government, and in hoping Ms. Giffords makes a full recovery.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The hell you on about now?He said exactly what I said: the shooter is probably crazy, and crazy people are influenced by violent rhetoric. Learn to read.

Crazy people are influenced by the rhetoric in their heads Mooreon. I hardly see how any reference to Palin or the Tea Party is relevant in a thread about a crazy person. The Sheriff didn't make the specific references because it would've been patently irresponsible.

You two-face hypocrite! I condemn Palin and the Tea Party for irresponsible rhetoric and you attack me.

Attack you? Lighten up francis. It doesn't make sense to condemn Palin and the Tea Party in a thread about a crazy person who had zero to do with Palin and the Tea Party.

Then you go and accuse the sherrif of irresponsible rhetoric. So which is it: does irresponsible rhetoric exist in your mind or not?

Follow along. I didn't accuse the sheriff of irresponsible rhetoric, I accused you of being irresponsible by trying to make the connection between this shooter and the discourse of Palin and the Tea Party. This whole "never let a crisis go to waste" BS that seems to permeate the feeble-minded around here in exploiting any tragedy for their partisan dig is opportunistic and irresponsible. Of course irresponsible rhetoric exists, if it didn't I wouldn't be here addressing yours.

This, gentlemen, is called the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

This is a first. It's a fallacy to point out to the ambulance-chasing opportunists here that this shooter and the likes of Palin and the Tea Party collective actually have very little in common including interests in Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, and atheism? Using your logic, I could as easily connect this psychopath to Michael Moore. He shot up the grocery store parking lot because of the violent rhetoric of Michael Moore. See how dangerous Michael Moore is? See how dangerous his ilk can be?

What?!? I'm just sayin'.

Besides, I didn't claim he was a Tea Party'er or God-fearing American, or the Queen of Sheba. Crazy peeple are never consistent in their crazy flights of fantasy. The ideology isn't the issue. It's the violent rhetoric that's relevant.

Crazy people are never consistent in their crazy flights of fantasy... Okay. the ideology isn't the issue... Okay. IT'S THE VIOLENT RHETORIC!

Ahh yes, it's the violent rhetoric that sets off the inconsistent crazy person with crazy flights of fantasy. You're so close mckenna. Try again.

No, I think the fact that he's a drugged-out nutcase is the relevant point here. Fiery political rhetoric has been the norm in this country since its inception. People trying to connect it to this specific political movement or that "violent rhetoric" (like references to "battleground districts") as if this is causal of society's slayers are just being opportunistic political zealots.

If a crazy person sits around listening to their winngut uncle go on about needing to gut a few Libs and hang Obama, don't you think the crazy person is gonna be influenced?

No. I blame the song 'Suicide Solution' by Ozzy Osbourne and violent shoot 'em up video games. Oh, and Hitler... discuss.

The rhetoric of the Tea Party is nothing but the non-stop rantings of wingnut uncles. That's the political environment the Tea Party is encouraging, and this is the result.
She's a lightning rod for controversy because she barks stupidity on a regular basis. It has nothing to do with any mythical "antagonist left."

I've got no room for ambulance-chasing leftist zealots who seek to exploit any tragedy for their partisan point du jour. It's tired.

What the hell is wrong with you? He's not worked up "over" the political discourse, he's worked up "by" it. Big effing difference.
Nice try. The Tea Party is pissed at him because he allowed a $32 million lawsuit against an Arizona rancher to proceed. The case was brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. He and his family had to be protected by the US Marshals for a month because hundreds of death threats were made.

Last February? Amazing how this guy managed to "stay sane" for so long! So who's responsible for all the death threats to Palin and folks from the Tea Party leadership? Who's responsible for shooting out Republicans' office windows?

Whose fiery political speech should we attempt to silence before more people die?!?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Actually, I think Moore is right here, for once. If a Muslim leader had posted a similar map, with similar imagery over congressional districts, and a similar thing happened to one of the congressmen in those districts, you can bet that he would be in jail right now, and whatever organization he led would be dissected for terrorist ties, no matter what his intentions actually were.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Bullshit. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Right here is where we disagree, there is no point to go any further. Not only will I stand by my statement that I agree with Moore (A stopped clock is right twice a day, after all), but I will further state that you would be one of the first people to stand up and condemn our hypothetical Muslim, even though you say you wouldn't. Because you will see that person's communications as "inciting violence", while you would see the exact same communications coming from a Christian TV pundit whom you agree with as having nothing to do with the violence.

Yes, I can read your mind. You never know who you'll meet on the Internet!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Right here is where we disagree, there is no point to go any further. Not only will I stand by my statement that I agree with Moore (A stopped clock is right twice a day, after all), but I will further state that you would be one of the first people to stand up and condemn our hypothetical Muslim, even though you say you wouldn't. Because you will see that person's communications as "inciting violence", while you would see the exact same communications coming from a Christian TV pundit whom you agree with as having nothing to do with the violence.

Yes, I can read your mind. You never know who you'll meet on the Internet!

I think what's missing in the connection is a cultural/geographical divide. We've come to understand what Middle East religious extremism is capable of and I think we're all a little "extra-vigilant" when it comes to fiery, religious/Islamic rhetoric. We've also come to understand the term jihad and that there is a broad, concerted effort to bring harm to the West and their ideals. Fiery political rhetoric has been the norm in this country since its inception and the map with crosshairs is a relatively popular reference to battleground states/districts. Most of the concern for the acts of religious extremism is its concerted nature. There is nothing to suggest the jihad-seeking Muslim extremist is mentally deficient. Scrutiny of Islamic extremism is generally focused around the lack of official, public denunciation which feeds the concern of ideological solidarity in violence. There has been no lack of condemnation for this shooter's actions from all political affiliations.

Loughner, on the other hand, is a lone gunman, drug addict, with well-documented mental concerns, disconnected thought-patterns, and has had difficulty with almost all social aspects of his life. There is zero to suggest this is a concerted effort. From the news accounts I've seen, few who had come in contact with him were surprised to find out that he was the shooter.

This is merely an attempt (as are perhaps some of those hyper-critical of fiery Islamic rhetoric) to silence speech they don't appreciate.

[Big Mac]

This deluded tool listed Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books and Marx as an idol, yet the Tea Parties are predictably blamed by leftists like lpk. Incredible.

Here's a hint, lpk: You're politically much closer to this cretin than conservatives are.

[SpaceMonkey]

Well, this thread was clearly a fantastic idea.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Wow, can't even go one post before the typical "IT WUZ A LIBURAL/CONVERVUHTIVE" argument. Well done.

I suppose it was destined to end up this way, anyway...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Well, this thread was clearly a fantastic idea.

I've heard speculation that the person who started it was a tea partier.

[ort888]

Never mind.

I'm not going to lower myself and get involved with this retard parade.

Some of you guys though, seriously have hearts filled with nothing but hatred. It's very sad. You must be very unhappy.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I've heard speculation that the person who started it was a tea partier.

You mean, like, he dressed like an Indian, and, like, hurled bales of tea overboard?

Or was he doing the tea - as in *tea* (wink wink, nudge nudge the kind you roll)

Oh forget it. ort888 is right.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Never mind.

I'm not going to lower myself and get involved with this retard parade.

Some of you guys though, seriously have hearts filled with nothing but hatred. It's very sad. You must be very unhappy.

Honestly, I think it might be time to take a vacation from the PL. Reading some of this garbage is obviously affecting my disposition.

Of course, this is why I make inconsequential jokes so often. To take some of these posts seriously makes me range from depressed to enraged.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So the "let's not jump to conclusions coalition" RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE spins away desperately to tie this having anything whatsoever to do with Bush, the Tea Party, Palin, Talk Show hosts, any/everything else they're afraid of and try to blame everything on, rather than just admit the guy is just a nut with no clear political ideology. (In fact, if all the net chatter is to be believed, could probably more easily be pegged as a lefty moonbat than a conservative.)

So you're criticizing the left for associating the gunman with the right, while associating the gunman with the left.

Two prominent liberals make erroneous connections between the shooter and various conservative heads while hundreds of conservative news sources report on those two liberals to make their conservative argument.

Both sides are guilty of exploiting the situation. Get over yourself.

[OAW]

I think all that can be said at this point is that this guy was a nutjob. Whether he was a left-wing nutjob or a right-wing nutjob or a plain old nutjob remains to be seen. Clearly the guy had some serious anti-government beliefs ... so while I think it's inappropriate to link this guy to the Tea Party or Sarah Palin I don't think it's out of bounds to say that a lot of the anti-government vitriol that's being spewed about in recent years needs to be put on pause. All of the gun oriented imagery and rhetoric needs to be put on pause regardless of who's doing it ... precisely because in a country with 300+ million people it's all too easy for there to be some nutcase who will take it all too literally. And even if the nutcase didn't see or hear any of that foolishness ... it just looks real bad for you if something like this jumps off. So why even go there?

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think all that can be said at this point is that this guy was a nutjob. Whether he was a left-wing nutjob or a right-wing nutjob or a plain old nutjob remains to be seen. Clearly the guy had some serious anti-government beliefs ... so while I think it's inappropriate to link this guy to the Tea Party or Sarah Palin I don't think it's out of bounds to say that a lot of the anti-government vitriol that's being spewed about in recent years needs to be put on pause. All of the gun oriented imagery and rhetoric needs to be put on pause regardless of who's doing it ... precisely because in a country with 300+ million people it's all too easy for there to be some nutcase who will take it all too literally. And even if the nutcase didn't see or hear any of that foolishness ... it just looks real bad for you if something like this jumps off. So why even go there?

OAW

I think it's also appropriate to say that a lot of people, including myself feared that he would be a tea party type because of their well established anti-government stances and because people in general are capable of something like this based on a firm belief, but I'm sincerely happy that he was just a random loon instead. To me, my interest in the political part of this discussion kind of ended there, and next time I will not be quick to jump the gun like that.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think it's also appropriate to say that a lot of people, including myself feared that he would be a tea party type because of their well established anti-government stances and because people in general are capable of something like this based on a firm belief, but I'm sincerely happy that he was just a random loon instead. To me, my interest in the political part of this discussion kind of ended there, and next time I will not be quick the jump the gun like that.

Tea Party Members are not anti-government, they are for limited government. There is a huge difference, but I am sure that is lost on you also.

[besson3c]

Limited government based on a general mistrust of government, therefore anti-government at least in this sense.

Can we tone down the silly "lost on you" sort of frustrated language? You can express your frustration without making things personal.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Limited government based on a general mistrust of government, therefore anti-government at least in this sense.

Can we tone down the silly "lost on you" sort of frustrated language? You can express your frustration without making things personal.

Not true. A typical tea party member does not mistrust the government. They simply want less government intrusion in their lives. They know that government serves a purpose, else we fall into anarchy.

How about you attend a tea party meeting, or actually read something other than things that feed your liberal ideology.

You are a total hypocrite. You make blanket generalizations (in the OP) before facts are known about a group of people that some here might find insulting, yet throw your hands up and call "poor me" when someone challenges your thought process.

[besson3c]

Hint: I don't give a shit whether I'm deemed a hypocrite or not. If we can't have this conversation without things getting ugly and personal (or posts that are deemed for whatever reason insulting resulting in endless retaliation), maybe this thread should be locked, or else maybe I'm due for a vacation from this place as well.

[pooka]

Great thread. Good posts. I support a ban on hateful rhetoric and crosshairs. Also I support a ban on Glocks. **** Austria.

"It is intrinsic in a free society that deaths occur when they "could have been prevented". This is an acceptable artifact of freedom."

[pooka]

Also, this is one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

Daring Fireball: Bull's-Eyes and Crosshairs

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Not true. A typical tea party member does not mistrust the government. They simply want less government intrusion in their lives. They know that government serves a purpose, else we fall into anarchy.

How about you attend a tea party meeting, or actually read something other than things that feed your liberal ideology.

You are a total hypocrite. You make blanket generalizations (in the OP) before facts are known about a group of people that some here might find insulting, yet throw your hands up and call "poor me" when someone challenges your thought process.

If your argument is that wanting limited government is not the same as being anti-government, fair enough, but this is simply a semantic argument unless you really thought that I felt that the tea party people want total anarchy?

There is no logical reason why wanting limited government is *not* based on mistrust of the government. If not mistrust of the individual politicians, mistrust in the results of looking to the government for solutions. This is also a perfectly logical argument, the government has given none of us any particular reason to trust them (I happen to think that for other reasons the wanting limited government folks at this point are putting the cart before the horse and/or are oversimplifying matters and/or are being too rigidly ideological, but that's another story).

Addressing the idea of being insulted by what I wrote. Here is what I wrote in my first post:

We don't know the motivations of the gunman yet, but their is speculation that he was some tea party nut.

I'm sorry, but if you find this insulting this is your problem, not mine. You can think of me as a hypocrite (I don't really care whether I'm deemed accordingly), but if one were to jump the gun and come to a conclusion prematurely, going by what Gifford's father said and assuming that the person was a tea party person (who are largely known for not being fans of government solutions, particularly on the left) is as good and as reasonable a conclusion to come to prematurely as any. If your being offended by this was because you felt that I was saying that all tea party people are nuts, or that the likelihood of this being related to the tea party somehow relates to their moral character and/or mental state this is your projection, and frankly your problem.

Regardless, even if my intent was specifically to offend, haven't we learned by now that retaliation by making things personal has a pretty predictable negative outcome in here?

[Doofy]

I feel sorry for the little girl. She's only dead because her parents politicised her (at age nine - WTF?)... ...a nine year old should be playing with dolls/kittens, not "learning about government" at a rally.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I feel sorry for the little girl. She's only dead because her parents politicised her (at age nine - WTF?)... ...a nine year old should be playing with dolls/kittens, not "learning about government" at a rally.

Maybe they couldn't find a babysitter.