http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/...#axzz1AgrQV5sH



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

From The Politico, lost in the real tragedy of the last two days:

Which made it all the more awesomely telling that absolutely nobody on the Left thought he was talking about them, and everyone on the Right went wild defending themselves against this attack "against them."

Hey, if the shoe fits...

"You know, our founding fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact, you know, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking towards those second amendment remedies and saying my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." - Sharron Angle on a radio interview last fall before the election she lost.

They are BOTH out of line. Man up, be a tough momma grizzly, shoot a caribou - they are all posers playing with fire and saying, "Oh, oh, oh, THAT'S not what I meant!"

Well it's not like this guy didn't have a history....uh...isn't he an elected official and didn't he run as a DEM?

Birds of a feather.... (see how I worked that in FOF's :p)

The liberal agenda is caving like a $2 suitcase, and the ultra-liberal lefties are so enraged about it that they'll pull anything out of a fire in retaliation. That's what this is all about.

Hateful rhetoric on either side of the political spectrum will not be tolerated by anyone who isn't a political zealot. It's never worked in the past, and it's surely not going to work now.

Blame started being formulated before the victims of this shooting made it to the ER.

It's about the victims - not about anyone's conjecture as to who they think is to blame. The only one to blame right now is the shooter. And unless and until some information comes forward that someone else is to blame besides him, everybody should just stop speculating.

And that County Sheriff "Nudnik" is one of the most incendiary persons who has had access to a microphone. He's covering his butt because in hindsight (pun intended) he's now thinking he should have done something to protect her - a definite Captain Hindsight.

The "liberal agenda"? Didn't they just pass tons of Democratic signature laws? How is that "caving"?

I think "what it's all about" is an effing mass murder, Doreen.

Yup. True. Let's see where that rhetoric is coming from over the past two years ....

Nice lack of respect you have going there. A little hateful, don't you think?

Your statement is absurdly ridiculous on it's face. It's simply and factually false. You clearly haven't listened to it, have you? How could you have, and say that with a straight face. His statement was reasoned, and did NOT attack anybody or any party specifically. He deliberately went out of his way to limit it to "some", to not be broadly accusatory.

These words, a direct quote - and watch the tape, he was carefully choosing his words and speaking calmly and slowly - is what you characterize as "most incendiary? Are you kidding?

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

That is the statement you characterize as "most incendiary"? That's the statement the right wing has been in screaming hysterical overdrive of "not us! YOU!" about?

What a load of ... oh, I dunno ... political zealotry?

Sheriff Dupnik has been down there as Sheriff for 40 years. He's been there through the elections, through the healthcare debate, through immigration debates, through previous attacks on this and other elected officials down there. He's watched Arizona change, and he was asked what he thought could have contributed to the murders. He knew several of the people hurt and killed. He most certainly is entitled to his very educated, professional opinion about what contributes to violence in Tuscon.

"Covering his butt" ??? You're just making nonsensical crap up out of thin air.

White Race Advantage is an amazing "horse" sight..

Clarence has toned down his rhetoric in today's interviews. Almost immediately after the shooting on Saturday, however, he stated that Loughner was inspired by conservative talk radio. He even admitted today that he spoke out of emotion rather than fact - something a law and order man shouldn't be doing.

Re his failure to protect Rep. Giffords. He knew she was a target, stated several happenings that gave out all sorts of warning signals - and I'm not talking about Sarah Palin's crosshairs graphic.

[Nope. He didn't.

I watched every press conference Saturday, including watching live the first one he gave, where he made the original statement (which I quoted in the previous post) and I never heard him say that.

I have never seen any replay quote of the Sheriff saying that on any news program. Have you?

Don't you think if he really said that, they would be replaying that clip all over the news?

They can't replay anything. Because he never said it.

If he did say it, please provide a direct quote or video to support your contention, and I'll gladly correct my thinking that statement is false.

He said that Saturday. That he did not know what caused the gunman to do it, he did not know if politics had anything to do with it, but he thinks that the violent rhetoric has gotten out of hand.

Nonsensical wildazz guess with no facts in evidence. He's talked about her office being damaged. He talked about threats she'd had and the resolution of those. He said she didn't routinely have police at her Congress On Your Corner events (which she does quite regularly).

It makes more sense that he said the rhetoric statement because - first, it's true - that he's listened to the angry rhetoric for the past few years for all elected officials down there, people threatening others, people getting angry,healthcare, immigration (terribly nasty down there), saw the Judge have to have US Marshalls to protect him a while back, heard the threats against her, and then a Congresswoman he knows gets blown away in a mass murder-attempted assassination in a Safeway parking lot.

Naw, the first thing you come up with is that there isn't really any violent rhetoric, it's all about a deliberately planned misdirection attempt to the press to cover his ass.

I'll take the more logical answer, myself.

Roger Ailes of Fox News
 

Here's a very telling quote from Roger Ailes, Fox News President, as reported by NBC, regarding what he told his on-air personalities Saturday about reporting the shootings:

First, his on-air news guys don't know how to report on a breaking news story? And the way to do it is: "Shut up? Tone it down? "

And there is an "other side" in a mass murder-assassination attempt? And one would normally expect his news team to report this story "with bombast" ??

Yup, he did - I saw it on Saturday and again tonight on Bill O'Reilly's The Factor. Can't find it on the internet, however. Must have gotten taken down because it's too incendiary.

Here's a reference to it - which I'm sure you'll find fault with.

http://www.examiner.com/political-bu...alk-radio-link

That is the "proof"? Some guy saying so? Yeah. That's baloney.

All the major news orgs were at that press conference where the Sheriff allegedly said that, it was televised live.

And you're saying no news organization in the world has a copy of the video of the Sheriff saying that?

How can that be? They are playing other clips from that news conference.

All the talk on the Sunday morning news shows today - Fox News Sunday, Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc - were about "the vitriolic conversation", and nobody televises that clip?

Even Fox News doesn't televise any clip of the Sheriff saying that?

That's because he never said it. Period.

But, as Brian pointed out, the right wing hysteria machine immediately took off defending themselves. Against words that didn't mention them directly. Very telling.

Stop blaming the Sheriff for something he never said.

The Sheriffs press conference
 

A quick search of YouTube finds multiple video copies of the Sheriffs first press conference.

This (part 2 of a 4 part download) contains the applicable quotes, starting about 1:29. The entire press conference is here.

If someone can find anywhere where he specifically calls out conservatives, or the right wing, please point it out. He does talk about radio and some television, but never mentions right wing or conservative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwhOE...eature=related

And here's the part where he says we in the US should do some soul-searching regarding our vitriolic talk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccY9l...eature=related

But nowhere does he talk specifically about conservatives or the right wing.

Try these -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJlJmtqPVK0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slmQDzMpBM0

Very interesting find you came up with. I will never vote for the Democrat party again after they have opened thier mouths without having all the facts.

Harry Reid's day will come when he isn't elected. Unfortunately it wasn't last year.

Was it not put on TV news that this nut job had a run in with Rep Giffords around three years ago? That would make it before Palin put up the picture of who to vote out in the elections and also was the Tea Party operating back then. Sounds like this nut job has had it for Rep Giffords for a while. My hope is Rep Giffords or some one who was shot or the family of one of the deceased people give the nut job what he deserves. A nice lethal injection instead of ending him quick make him suffer like the deceased and the injured one's are.

Someone making sense here. Thank You.

Nice work PD - Facts Matter
Attachment 1634

I dont understand what is wrong with that quote, besides that Angle is a moron. She obviously meant take him out of office.. I dont see how it could be read any different way.

I agree...and apparently the voters didn't like her message.

Isn't that the way it is suppose to work?

Sorry Doreen. What you post doesn't support your contention at all.

You - and the right wing hysteria machine - said the Sheriff originally called out right wing/conservatives. That's your excuse for attacking him. He did not. That's clear on the tapes of the press conference.

The Sheriff never, in his press conference, called out the right or conservatives, did he?

Now, later - after the right wing hysterics have been screaming for 24 hours that he called them out when he didn't - he's on talk shows talking about how it doesn't surprise him the right wing hysteria machine ginned itself up over him simply talking about vitriolic talk in a general way.

It's laughable. That's exactly what happened. As Brian pointed out. As we are pointing out now. You've now proved my point for me. Thanks :D ;)

So, Nascar, are you saying you hope Harry Reid gets shot? Yes or no?

Uh, it's all over the TV news that this nut job visited a "Congress On Your Corner" meet two years ago or so. There was no "run in", other than he asked a weird question.

And I'll bet you learned that because it was all over the TV News, didn't you?

Except her "facts" have nothing whatsoever to do with what she said happened. How is that in any way "nice work"?

If he wasn't talking about conservative talk radio and tv, just exactly who was he talking about?

It's time to stop the SPIN. Sheriff Clarence should not be using his job to be making political statements, and he shouldn't be placing blame on anyone before the facts are in. He's the catalyst that started all this, "You're to blame. No, you're to blame." nonsense. It accomplishes nothing except to make the chasm wider between the parties.

Nothing has been stated by Sharon Angle or Sarah Palin that hasn't been stated by members of both political parties in their campaign rhetoric. Now, all of a sudden - rhetoric is at fault for this nut job's actions.

Except her "facts" have nothing whatsoever to do with what she said happened. How is that in any way "nice work"?

There is this concept called "reality". When people literally do not say something, simply insisting that they did say something doesn't make it true.

Then posting a video of the person at a later date, still not saying it , but talking about how YOU said they did, doesn't make it true, either, no matter how hard one closes their eyes and hopes it does.

Face it: the Sheriff brought up vitriolic talk in general, the far right wing immediately and defensively went over the edge attacking him and the left. Exactly as Brian said. Again. Predictably. It's what they do.

How many "liberal" media outlets actually, truely blamed someone on the right? Not very many. Not any in the major media.

Simply talking about the existence of Sarah's crosshair PAC ad (even Bill O'Reilly called it "lame", but no more) isn't "blaming". Talking about Sharron Angles' statement on second amendment remedies isn't "blame", it's discussing her talk. Showing images of the idiots that carried guns to political rallies isn't blaming. It's talking about the subject the Sheriff brought up, vitriolic rhetoric.

So let's talk about what you guys are screaming about. Have some said Beck, etc are indeed to blame for this? Yes. Very few. In fact, so few, you guys should feel free to quote them and name them here. They are idiots to directly blame specific people's talk with the killer, there simply isn't any indication of that now.

In fact, there are plenty of quotes from people "on the left" agreeing with you, agreeing with that, saying nobody's talk on the national scene can possibly be blamed for the acts of a madman. Hey, the Sheriff even said that in the original press conference.

Feel free to be turning your outrage on them - don't turn it on people that haven't said it, and are only trying to talk about the general vitriol out there. Like the Sheriff and the vast majority of the media.

:zz: The Sheriff originally - in the press conference - talked generally about those who spew vitriolic rhetoric. He never mentioned right or conservative.

But the ultra right wing conservative machine picked up that shoe, said it fits them perfectly, and how dare he!

Exactly as Brian said - nobody accused them, but boy, they sure started defending themselves :D

Those who are lying and misspeaking about what the Sheriff said - and it's a whole lot - have the moral and ethical responsibility to correct their public misstatements.

What he's talking about in the videos you posted from the next days are simply acknowledging that yes, the right wing sure got riled up! True, isn't it?

And here you perpetuate the falsehood. You simply keep stating what has been proven isn't true. He never placed blame on anyone in his press conference. He made no political statement. Your statement is completely false. STOP SPINNING, Doreen.

No, the right wing hysteria machine did that. The Sheriff never placed blame. The press conference is posted here - you can't quote where he did. Because it didn't happen.


Then stop doing it. Stop saying things that are not true.

She is a moron. What does carrying guns to overthrow the government ("second amendment remedies") have to do with elections in a democratic society? Why bring guns up?

Gee, no, that's why I ASKED YOU WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT. Because I don't want to assume, or put words in your mouth. I don't know your answer. So I ASKED YOU.

:zz: Is using words really this difficult?

Maybe you couldn't be stupid. But I doubt that will happen.
And after all these decades, I'm still a registered Republican, thanks.

The briliant voice of reality....George Will


It would be merciful if, when tragedies such as Tucson's occur, there were a moratorium on sociology. But respites from half-baked explanations, often serving political opportunism, are impossible because of a timeless human craving and a characteristic of many modern minds.

The craving is for banishing randomness and the inexplicable from human experience. Time was, the gods were useful. What is thunder? The gods are angry. Polytheism was explanatory. People postulated causations.

And still do. Hence: The Tucson shooter was (pick your verb) provoked, triggered, unhinged by today's (pick your noun) rhetoric, vitriol, extremism, "climate of hate."

Demystification of the world opened the way for real science, including the social sciences. And for a modern characteristic. And for charlatans.

A characteristic of many contemporary minds is susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior can be traced to some diagnosable frame of mind that is a product of promptings from the social environment. From which flows a political doctrine: Given clever social engineering, society, and people, can be perfected. This supposedly is the path to progress. It actually is the crux of progressivism. And it is why there is a reflex to blame conservatives first.

Instead, imagine a continuum from the rampages at Columbine and Virginia Tech — the results of individuals' insanities — to the assassinations of Lincoln and the Kennedy brothers, which were clearly connected to the politics of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Sirhan Sirhan, respectively. The two other presidential assassinations also had political colorations.

On July 2, 1881, after four months in office, President James Garfield, who had survived the Civil War battles of Shiloh and Chickamauga, needed a vacation. He was vexed by warring Republican factions — the Stalwarts, who waved the bloody shirt of Civil War memories, and the Half-Breeds, who stressed the emerging issues of industrialization.

Walking to Washington's Union Station to catch a train, Garfield by chance encountered a disappointed job-seeker. Charles Guiteau drew a pistol, fired two shots and shouted "I am a Stalwart and Arthur will be president!" On Sept. 19, Garfield died, making Vice President Chester Arthur president. Guiteau was executed, not explained.

On Sept. 6, 1901, President William McKinley, who had survived the battle of Antietam, was shaking hands at a Buffalo exposition when Leon Czolgosz approached, a handkerchief wrapped around his right hand, concealing a gun. Czolgosz, an anarchist, fired two shots. Czolgosz ("I killed the president because he was the enemy of the good people — the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.") was executed, not explained.

Now we have explainers. They came into vogue with the murder of President Kennedy. They explained why the "real" culprit was not a self-described Marxist who had moved to Moscow, then returned to support Castro. No, the culprit was a "climate of hate" in conservative Dallas, the "paranoid style" of American (conservative) politics, or some other national sickness resulting from insufficient liberalism.

Last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow explained that "the optics must be irritating" to conservatives: Barack Obama is black, Nancy Pelosi is female, Rep. Barney Frank is gay, Rep. Anthony Weiner (an unimportant Democrat, listed to serve Blow's purposes) is Jewish. "It's enough," Blow said, "to make a good old boy go crazy." The Times, which after the Tucson shooting said "many on the right" are guilty of "demonizing" people and of exploiting "arguments of division," apparently was comfortable with Blow's insinuation that conservatives are misogynistic, homophobic, racist anti-Semites.

On Sunday, the Times explained Tucson: "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or tea party members. But . . . " The "directly" is priceless.

Three days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the tea party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse, Dean smeared tea partyers as racists: They oppose Obama's agenda, Obama is African-American, ergo . . .

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation of liberals whose default position in any argument is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left — devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data — is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.

What's truth to one is false to another. We're never going to agree, so let's agree to disagree.

Sheriff Clarence has outworn his usefulness in law and order - time to step down and run for political office.

That's right, George. It is facile and mistaken. That's precisely what they said. The NY Times agrees with you.

Well, no, "truth" is not opinion. Nor wishful thinking.

The Sheriff never said what you and the right wing hysterics say he did. That's the only truth there is. You can continue to deny it.

Maybe you could say, "Wow, I never realized he really didn't say that. Everyone was saying he did. Kinda crazy. I'll stop saying he said it, because he didn't"

Because, gee, why add to the vitriolic rhetoric for no reason?

Please accept my apology regarding you being a Demotard? Glad to know you have some sense in politics.

Don't get too happy. I can't picture myself pulling a GOP lever for the next two election cycles. Have to see who shows up.

See People with Brains vote on the issues because they can think so their registered party really does not matter. Dull people will blindly vote 1 party irrespective of the candidate. You can spot these people very simply. The dullest of the dull amongst them usually resort to name calling of the party they are against.

half the things she says dont make sense. I just dont read that as a call to kill Harry Reid.