Yukon Jack Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981503/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/ Classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Well, I hope the kettle responds in like: It is a simple pledge, it is to the point, and it is essential that every American politician and commentator and activist and partisan take it and take it now, I say it first, and freely: Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Actually, it was demographic targets, not people, although she did list people's names. Here's a link to her facebook page: link First, I'd like to say I'm sorry for being insulting when I posted that comment on Saturday. I should have waited till after our weekend trip for the dust to settle, instead of posting comments while the shootings were still a breaking news story. But, two days later, I'm still in no more of a mood to cut Sarah Palin any slack than I was on Saturday. The way Sarah, and other rightwing political pundits and wannabees have been inflating the violent rhetoric and appealing to the worst qualities in their already paranoid base of support, this shooting, and previous less publicized attacks by fringe elements on the right, are the inevitable result. Ben Smith has an update to his Politico column which includes one of Palin's Twitter messages, which refers to the crosshairs as "bullseyes." The original column includes some attempts to spin the story by a Palin aide named Rebecca Mansour; who claims that the crosshairs could just be "surveyor's symbols".....as if any actual Palin fans would interpret crosshairs as a something used for surveying! And that's why I really want to see Palin, and other rightwing demagogues get burned this time by their dogwhistle calls to supporters that use violent rhetoric. Combine the crosshairs with "don't retreat, reload," and the message is unmistakeable for any yahoo or bubba driving around with a loaded gun. The Palin aide also seemed to have done a Google search for some desperate example to use of leftwing violence, and made reference to the hostage-taking incident at the Discovery Channel last fall. Of course in that example, no one died except the hostage-taker who was shot by police marksmen. He apparently had a homemade bomb strapped to his vest, which may have actually worked, if he had a chance to detonate it. However, there are many important aspects missing in that example now used by rightwingers. The most important being the increasing appeal to paranoia, xenophobia, and racism that's churning on the right. There is no network of leftwing agitators of the equivalent to Glenn Beck (who's crying idiotic rants about the Tides Foundation, inspired a lunatic with a gun to go to their HQ with the intention of mass murder), or Bill O'Reilly (who shares culpability for the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller), and there are worse ones just waiting in the wings for their chance to have a nationally syndicated radio show. There are no environmental groups advocating the use of violence to advance the green cause, but there are a whole host of conservative and libertarian talkers, bloggers, and even politicians, who have called for an armed, violent response, if they can't get their way at the ballot box. So, any claims of equivalence between left and right are false equivalence! The fact is that the threats of violence, and threats to democratic principles are almost exclusively coming from rightwing sources. And, another, even more important aspect of this story is that it is the right which is the voice of gun rights, and in the U.S. pushes so hard against any sensible efforts to control firearms, that any idiot (like this shooter) can walk into a gun store and purchase a Glock pistol. And this is an issue that has repercussions outside of the U.S., since most of the handguns used in shootings in Canada, have come from the U.S.; as have the vast array of weapons that Mexican drug gangs have used to kill almost 30,000 Mexicans....and the Americans complain about their border problem! The sad fact is that the lobbying of the NRA and Gunowners of America have made it impossible to trace illegal handguns in Canada and Mexico back to the U.S. gun purchasers, or gun stores that sold them! The gun laws in the U.S. have steadily chipped away at handgun control to the extent that Arizona allows people to walk around with concealed weapons......and now they are paying the price for it! As I said Saturday, much of the blame for America returning to the Wild Wild West falls at the feet of Democrats, who have done the political calculus that the Gun Lobby is too rich and too powerful in Washington and state capitals to take on directly. Maybe now that politicians who don't have Secret Service protection realize how much their lives are in danger, they'll stop playing politics with so called gun rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Too bad we haven't developed a little more understanding of ourselves, our behavior and our individual state of mind so that we can determine who might potentially commit such a heinous act and take appropriate measures. It is really laughable that political rhetoric is being attributed as a factor. let's face it, someone would still have to be unbalanced and there must have been some indicators of that imbalance before that, in this case it seems there was. If the far-left believe political rhetoric is the cause of this it seems to demonstrate how shaky their understanding of human behavior really is or, minimmally an inability to recognize cause. N-O O-N-E K-N-O-W-S what the person next to him will do....ooh....wooo-oohh! Be scared, people! Be very scared! And if the right believes they need to defend themselves from such idiocy they too could use a little understanding. It seems in North America that if the citizen cannot look after himself and cannot control his behavior the answer is for government to look after him and control him. They fail those citizens who can and have nothing but brutality and a demand for submission to offer those who can't. Some submit. Some return the brutality. As far as the vitriol and hatred exhibited in American politics, I think it is only necessary for Americans to define themselves. Are they about freedom, liberty and individual responsibility or are they like the rest of the world where government increasingly looks after them and they only have to concern themselves with what to do with their leisure time once they have satisfied the demands of government to meet the regulations in order to receive their entitlements. And they don't have to concern themselves with understanding each other at all. The social, caring-sharing reltionship training in Kindergarten and grade school seems to be failing us. I'm not saying less government would make a perfect environment but perhaps senseless acts of violence such as this would be less and any acts of violence we could at least all understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 If there was a well armed public, someone would have taken that person out right away, perhaps more lives could have been saved. Hats off to the heroes that took him down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) First, I'd like to say I'm sorry for being insulting when I posted that comment on Saturday. I should have waited till after our weekend trip for the dust to settle, instead of posting comments while the shootings were still a breaking news story. But, two days later, I'm still in no more of a mood to cut Sarah Palin any slack than I was on Saturday. The way WIP has been inflating the violent rhetoric with the following: appealing to the worst qualities in their already paranoid base And that's why I really want to see Palin, and other rightwing demagogues get burned this time any yahoo or bubba driving around with a loaded gun. the increasing appeal to paranoia, xenophobia, and racism that's churning on the right. Glenn Beck (who's crying idiotic rants about the Tides Foundation, inspired a lunatic) Bill O'Reilly (who shares culpability for the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller), worse ones just waiting in the wings for their chance to have a nationally syndicated radio show. there are a whole host of conservative and libertarian talkers, bloggers, and even politicians, who have called for an armed, violent response, if they can't get their way at the ballot box. the threats of violence, and threats to democratic principles are almost exclusively coming from rightwing sources. Edited January 10, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/gun-violence-and-the-less_b_806564.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=011011&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily+Brief Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Well, I hope the kettle responds in like: Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans. Violence should have a place in our democracy. We should have the right to defend ourselves and use violence if necessary. The senseless violence we see today has no place in our democracy. Only a mentally unbalanced individual or enemy of the country is capable of such a heinous act of random violence. It seems the individual in this case is not an enemy of the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Violence should have a place in our democracy. We should have the right to defend ourselves and use violence if necessary. The senseless violence we see today has no place in our democracy. Only a mentally unbalanced individual or enemy of the country is capable of such a heinous act of random violence. It seems the individual in this case is not an enemy of the country. Defending oneself from someone, at least in a physical sense, incorporates the idea of using reasonable force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 What do you expect from an empire that resorts to vileness to control the stupid people - video games - vile ........media - vile........art --------vile....sexuality now is totally vile and violated...you feed the monsters monster mash soup and suddenly you are surprised when the act out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Jack Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 What do you expect from an empire that resorts to vileness to control the stupid people - video games - vile ........media - vile........art --------vile....sexuality now is totally vile and violated...you feed the monsters monster mash soup and suddenly you are surprised when the act out?quote] So, are you saying that a similar event is to be expected to happen in Canada, because we Canadians are just as addicted to video games, American media, American art, sexuality, etc.? Or is your post is just a display of typical Canadian, anti-American superiority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 What do you expect from an empire that resorts to vileness to control the stupid people - video games - vile ........media - vile........art --------vile....sexuality now is totally vile and violated...you feed the monsters monster mash soup and suddenly you are surprised when the act out?quote] So, are you saying that a similar event is to be expected to happen in Canada, because we Canadians are just as addicted to video games, American media, American art, sexuality, etc.? Or is your post is just a display of typical Canadian, anti-American superiority? Do you have any examples of a similar event happening here in Canada? If so produce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 The information about Jared Lee Loughner don't make him sound like a Tea Party type. They make him sound like something of a fruitcake... more akin to the various self-proclaimed "Free Men" who've wandered through this forum in the past than to any organized political group. -k Yep...garden variety tin foil hat brigade. Conspiracy theories, NAU etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 W If there was a well armed public, someone would have taken that person out right away, perhaps more lives could have been saved. Hats off to the heroes that took him down. Giffords herself ownes a Glock. Didn't do her much good. Do we go back to the days where everyone carries a sidearm (with oversize clip of course) and check them at the door when entering a bar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 W Giffords herself ownes a Glock. Didn't do her much good. Do we go back to the days where everyone carries a sidearm (with oversize clip of course) and check them at the door when entering a bar? Why not? People will tend to shoot less knowing that everyone around them is packing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Why not? People will tend to shoot less knowing that everyone around them is packing. Nice theory, unfortunately it forces everyone to walk around armed in order to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 When you’re a liberal, it seems, cloying sanctimoniousness, grotesque moral posturing, double standards, hypocrisy and cynical, malevolent smearing all come as naturally and healthily as breathing. I realize these aren't your words, scribblet, but the venemous "liberal fascist" trope offerred up by a writer for the Telegraph...but did the amusing contradictions not even strike you as you read it? "When you're a liberal," he sneers....you're guilty of "malevolent smearing." Dude needs a proofreader, to parse for hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Nice theory, unfortunately it forces everyone to walk around armed in order to work. Seems to me that is already the situation as it stands in Arizona. So ghosthacked's theory of defence of the masses, by proliferation of weaponry is out the window. In order to see the opposite effect, in an area where guns are controlled and regulated, one could also look... north Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Why not? People will tend to shoot less knowing that everyone around them is packing. Yep worked so well in the old west... oh wait no it didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Seems to me that is already the situation as it stands in Arizona. So ghosthacked's theory of defence of the masses, by proliferation of weaponry is out the window. In order to see the opposite effect, in an area where guns are controlled and regulated, one could also look... north Relative merits of the arguments aside, isn't it just as intrusive on the part of government to require people to be armed in the name of public safety as it is to require them to be unarmed? A gun lobby that says everyone should be armed is no less disrespectful of a citizen's freedoms than a government that says no one should be armed. Edited January 10, 2011 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Relative merits of the arguments aside, isn't it just as intrusive on the part of government to require people to be armed in the name of public safety as it is to require them to be unarmed? A gun lobby that says everyone should be armed is no less disrespectful of a citizen's freedoms than a government that says no one should be armed. I think that's a pretty decent point, but it also underlines that the "required to be armed" knuckledraggers don't care about others' freedom at all. Only their own. That is, it's not a matter of principle. Besides, few governments do say that "no one should be armed." There are restrictions, but not blanket disallowances. So the "everyone should be armed" crew--who doesn't think people should even have an option--is less concerned about individual freedoms than are the governments it derides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Nice theory, unfortunately it forces everyone to walk around armed in order to work. No it does not force everyone to walk around with a gun. The right to bear arms does not mean you are forced to carry, it simply gives you the option. But it puts the notion in the would be criminal's mind that he has no idea who around him is packing and how many people are packing. When a criminal starts to think of that, then the likeyness of the incident happening is severly reduced. You can call 911 and wait for the cops to arrive all the while still being in danger, one properly trained civilian can solve that issue right there and then. The guy who tackled the gunman was a hero (I think he was shot as well), if that hero was packing, lives could have been saved. It's like the notion of cameras preventing crime. People tend to rethink things knowing that someone is always watching them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 No it does not force everyone to walk around with a gun. The right to bear arms does not mean you are forced to carry, it simply gives you the option. But it puts the notion in the would be criminal's mind that he has no idea who around him is packing and how many people are packing. When a criminal starts to think of that, then the likeyness of the incident happening is severly reduced. You can call 911 and wait for the cops to arrive all the while still being in danger, one properly trained civilian can solve that issue right there and then. The guy who tackled the gunman was a hero (I think he was shot as well), if that hero was packing, lives could have been saved. It's like the notion of cameras preventing crime. People tend to rethink things knowing that someone is always watching them. I take it you would be comfortable being the only one in the building without a gun. If not, you are being forced to carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 I realize these aren't your words, scribblet, but the venemous "liberal fascist" trope offerred up by a writer for the Telegraph...but did the amusing contradictions not even strike you as you read it? "When you're a liberal," he sneers....you're guilty of "malevolent smearing." :)Dude needs a proofreader, to parse for hypocrisy. I agree it was a tad over the top, but it kinda evens out the malevolent UK Guardian - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 I agree it was a tad over the top, but it kinda evens out the malevolent UK Guardian - I doubt the Guardian talks about conservatives the same way this fellow--indistinguishable from Ann Coulter and other such geniuses--talks about liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.