So what I wont vote Democrat anymore. The Democrats showed thier true colors and opened thier mouthes by blaming Palin and the Tea Party without an investagation being completed.

Thank you.

Calling me DULL doesnt bother me at all. I have a degree, so I must have some form of brains. Do you have a Degree?

I guess you just got it... Seriously now.. What is your IQ ?

Well you're not retarded.

Is Jesse Jackson and the Chicago Suntimes major enough? This was like finding the Holy Grail. :tro:

There is no evidence that Jared Loughner, the alleged gunman in Tucson, was a member of a right-wing hate group. He was clearly a young man whose mind was unraveling. But it is exactly the mentally unstable who are most likely to be influenced by an atmosphere filled with hate and murderous rhetoric.

If there is no evidence Jesse then why bring it up? Oh because....

In Arizona, the kindling was there. The economy has been hit hard by the financial collapse, with employment opportunities for young people particularly limited. With families losing jobs or homes, fear and depression are inevitable. Add to this a venomous, racially charged debate on immigration and health care reform, as well as some of the worst gun-control laws in the country.

So not only was it the rhetoric it was the economy, employment for young people, health care, gun-control and of course racisim? Then he enlightens us with this Dupnik statement.

As Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik stated, Arizona has become “a Mecca for prejudice and bigotry,” a cauldron of Tea Party anger, right-wing hate groups and anti-immigrant posturing.


Must have to admit the similarities between the Jared Loughner murders and the civil rights movement as pointed out by the Rev. are remarkable. To a lunatic!!! :zz:

http://www.suntimes.com/3240275-417/...g-actions.html

So where is the part where he says, "Sarah, Glenn, the Tea Party, the right wing, conservatives hold some of the blame for this" ??

Where is it? Did you skip posting that "holy grail" ?

As Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik stated, Arizona has become “a Mecca for prejudice and bigotry,” a cauldron of Tea Party anger, right-wing hate groups and anti-immigrant posturing.

The Sheriff only said the bolded quote part. I posted the videos of his saying that, and that entire direct quote already in this thread. The writer (Jackson) added the reference to "anger, right-wing hate etc". The Sheriff never said that.

You guys are hilarious. First, you've crucified the Sheriff for something he never said. Then, you're trying to crucify others. I've seen some write that the right wing, the Tea Party, etc. are to blame (which I agree is ridiculous) You guys apparently haven't seen them. You're going after people who haven't said that.

How about we stop that vitriolic rhetoric, falsely accusing people of saying things they didn't say?

Because, to quote Doreen, "Hateful rhetoric on either side of the political spectrum will not be tolerated by anyone who isn't a political zealot." I'm really not into tolerating false, hateful rhetoric.

This is going to be a really hard concept for some to grasp, I think: saying there is hateful rhetoric, then describing words you would say are hateful, and discussing the existence of "vitriolic rhetoric", is not the same thing as directly blaming someone in particular's talk for inciting killing.

There have been a couple of people I've seen on blogs who have said, directly, things like "Sarah Palin is responsible for this, the Tea Party is responsible for this". Nobody here has posted any of that, though. I've never read anybody "respected" in the news say that.

Listing things real people have actually said in public, then calling that hateful rhetoric, is exactly that - but it is not the same thing as accusing someone of being responsible for murder.

There shouldn't be violent rhetoric in politics. By anybody. That's a valid discussion to have. So stop interrupting it by saying, "You're talking about me, aren't you!" and throwing a damn temper tantrum, when nobody has mentioned you by name.

Geesh, if you are feeling THAT GUILTY, that your first response to a mass murder is to sanitize your website (Sarah Palin) then maybe you should consider what you say in public?

You asked for proof some major media outlet is blaming the right. I quote an op-ed piece from a former Dem candidate for President and current Rev., Journalist, Adulterer and father of a bastard child saying Arizona is "a cauldron of Tea Party anger, right-wing hate groups and anti-immigrant posturing" and I'm saying things he didn't say. BTW this is the first time I've quoted the Sheriff but it's hilarious that when it suits you I'm one of 'you guys' and thus am misquoted.

Dell, we are talking about "blaming the right for the murders" directly. Not blaming the right for nasty talk. And no, I'm not asking for "proof" - I've read it! I need no proof. Some very few, and not the mainstream, and not the Sheriff, have indeed blamed the right directly for the murders - that some aspects of the right have "blood on their hands", type of thing. "Sarah Palin, this is all your fault" type of thing.

You guys haven't yet quoted anyone of those people who have said it, and you've (the general you) have false and viciously attacked people, like the Sheriff, who have not said that.

That's the very definition of "hateful rhetoric" right there.

I posted the Sheriff's real quote here. I've posted the video here. All you had to do is click to see what the Sheriff really said. Here it is again, because you are too effing lazy or stupid to do it yourself:

The Sheriff said: "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."

And here's the video of him talking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwhOE...eature=related

So yes, the quoted part belongs to the Sheriff, the addition of Azizona being, a "cauldron of Tea Party anger, right-wing hate groups and anti-immigrant posturing." must be Jacksons'.

So, Jackson (not the Sheriff, he never said that) says that Arizona is a "cauldron of Tea Party anger, right-wing hate groups, and anti-immigrant posturing".

Is that saying those groups are responsible for the murders? No. Where does he say "they must hold blame" or something similar? It only says that Jackson thinks Arizona has alot of nasty rhetoric going on.

If you want to talk about the validity of Arizona being a "cauldron of Tea Party anger, right-wing hate groups, and anti-immigrant posturing", that's a valid discussion to have. But I don't see anywhere Jackson has laid the blame for the killer's actions upon those groups. Which is what you are maintaining.

Geesh, here, I'll do your proof for you, because you can't seem to find it: the title of the article is "hate speech lit blaze in Arizona". But the article fails to flesh that out and make the direct connection or accusation. All Jackson ends up really saying is that there's alot of nasty talk in Arizona. Yes, I think there is. Do you?

I got my degree while in the military. Im confident my IQ is higher than your IQ is. Unlike you my brain is bigger than a pea. I dont sit on my computer all day like you do and spent it at this site.

So let's interrupt the famous right wing hysteria generator, and talk about the real problem: the right wing, conservative, tea party, Sarah-Glenn-Sean-Sharon factions are really upset people have called out their nasty and hate-filled talk of the past two years as being, well, "nasty". And "hate-filled" at times. And referring to violence. And guns. And armies. And enemies. In reference to democratic politics and voting and elections.

And those people pointing out nasty talk are controlling the conversation now, because 20 people were just shot, and 6 died, and the country is outraged. And there's a big fear on the part of the nasty talkers that outrage may fall right on those that like and do the nasty talk. And they may suffer at future elections. So the nasty talkers have puffed themselves up into full-screaming-victim mode ("You're accusing me of killing people, that's wrong!") even though nobody has actually done that, to try and deflect the attention from their nasty talk Discuss.

It's all in your head.

This sherriff out there making all the noise about talk radio, and angry rhetoric should be relieved of duty. Uncle Fester had called in several death threats, but no action was taken by the sheriff. It looks to me like his department is to blame for not following up on leads that would have prevented this guy from obtaining a gun.

Well he was liste..investigating Rush Limbaugh.

Whatever for? He's responsible for the safety of his county. He's been the Sheriff there for what, 30-40 years? He's been dealing with violence surrounding politics for a few years, and it's increasing. He just had a freaking mass murder-assassination attempt.

He's certainly entitled to discuss the mood of his county and state, and what could be threatening the safety of those whose lives he's entrusted with protecting. Every good law enforcement officer does that. It's what he is paid to do.

Jim, did you watch the 4-part press conference I posted (which was the first one that day it happened, when things were still in great flux), or did you see it live? Just wondering.

And geesh, don't insult the memory of Uncle Fester with that creepy face!

First I thought you said that very few if any major media outlets were inferring the acts of Loughner were either 'directly' or 'indirectly' related to what seems to be the new catch phrase 'vitriolic rhetoric' so I included the Rev. Moron's piece.

To your question, yes there is now and always has been nasty talk. Consider the fact that what may be perceived as nasty to some may be the norm for others. For example some may think calling Obama & Co. crooks for using public funds to bail out private companies is nasty just as some think calling the US troops at Gitmo the Gestapo and Bush a murderer and torturer was nasty.

We are in hard times where major movements either have or have the potential to take America on a new course. This raises emotion and thus nasty talk. It's as normal as a dog barking at a perceived danger. To mute the canine or politician is simply asinine. IMO

I’d also argue that the U.S. politicians, who in some distorted realty, thought that the 9-11 attack was somehow our ‘chickens coming back to roost’ or that Bush, the Jews et al had previous knowledge of, is a far better example of ‘vitriolic rhetoric’ as opposed to putting bulls eyes on a poster.

Sen. Durbin calling the marines stationed at Gitmo the Gestapo would also seem to have more vitriolic gravitas so to speak. Let's also not forget Rev Al Sharpton calling for the murdering of NYC police officers and of course the Rev. Jackson calling for Obama’s balls to be cut off. Amen :eek:

I think Kanjorski's, "Put him against the wall and shoot him." - clearly over the top. You? What about references to violence and guns in general. Yes? No?

Jackson cutting Obama's balls off was a private comment picked up by a mic - what if he had said that at a rally, in public?

What they didn't ask him, and what I would want to know, is would Joe have gone outside if he didn't have a gun on him? I would guess not. He still gets credit for being brave.

I think when you include the rest of his quote, you know, "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" NO!

Wonder why you left the rest of the quote out when you seem like such a stickler for taking things out of context. Simple mistake ;)

:zz: I left the quote out because it is here in it's entirety in this thread, and I figured you'd know what I am referring to. Then let's do the whole quote:

"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."

Yeah, I think that's definitely over the top, recommending shooting your opponent. Completely out of place, uncalled for, appalling.

"Oh, but I didn't mean it literally!"

Florida did elect someone whose company indeed stole millions of dollars from the US, and had to give it back with fines. Unbelievable. I personally do think he's a healthcare crook. But the best choice out of what was offered. But still that is no reason for a public call for assassination.

You think that is okay to say that? Seriously?

He never took his gun out and didn't because he was afraid of being identified as the gunman and you want to know if he would have gone outside unarmed? What do you think he did? Rely on his holstered gun for a good luck charm? Or for courage a la the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz? Does he get more credit unarmed? Or less if he drew? What an odd question. IMO. America is great because of guys like this.

:tro::tro:

Arizona has the best gun laws out there (tho very unfortunate that this happened on Saturday). Its too bad an armed grocery store customer wasnt able to take the lunatic out before he shot so many people.

Yeah, Dell, I exactly wonder if he would have gone towards gunshots, if he did not have a loaded gun in his pocket.

That question has nothing at all to do if the gun was visible (drawn) or not. That doesn't matter.

I know that personally I'd feel much more comfortable going after a psycho murderer if I was locked and loaded.

But the initial guys who took down the psycho were not armed I believe.. I think one of them had a bullet graze his head too.

A GOP Republican is going to submit legislation to make it illegal to carry a gun within 1000 feet of any member of Congress. I don't see the point, myself.

What about changing ammunition laws back to what they used to be, so you don't get to get off 30 shots in seconds?

Or maybe having to fill out a permit to carry? It's easier to buy that gun and ammunition than it is to get Sudafed OTC in AZ.

Of course I do. It may be wrong or asinine but I think it still passes as speech. Then the voters of FL spoke their way.

that race was like trying to decide between Bush and John Kerry.. i think I wrote in a fake candidate or voted for an independent.

I assume you think it's okay because normal people would assume he didn't mean it literally.

But what if he started calling for the guy to be shot at every political stop? What if he repeated that exact paragraph, calmly smiling, shaking hands, at every campaign stop, as a talking point?

I guess we'll have to go with the facts. He did go towards gunshots with a gun in his pocket and not in his hand. Call me crazy but even if he had drawn and went towards the gunshots he's a hero in my mind.

To you it somehow matters and that seems even more odd to me now.

What does it really matter what provoked this guy anyway? There was plenty of "vitriolic rhetoric" from both sides going on in the past election cycle, mostly in their ads against each other. What if he never heard any of it out in his own world somewhere. That's how politics have been in America since the start. I would be just as inclined to believe, if not even more so, that he was incited by too many hours sitting quietly by himself playing violent shoot-em-up video games. He probably watched too many of the blood and guts movies that come screaming out of Hollywood desensitizing himself to violence. He then washed it all down with drugs, alcohol, and a steady dose of Gangsta Rap ( full credit and a big fat thank you from Tipper Gore for the last one). New legislation to ban high capacity magazines promised yesterday by Frank Lautenberg Democrat from N.J. and a longtime anti-gun voter.

The majority of your input in this thread deals with what the Sheriff did or didn't state you want to now magically transform and deal with a hypothetical?

You don’t find that the least bit hypocritical?

He didn't and I think if he did he'd have about six supporters so the campaign in its entirety would stop. America works if you allow her!

Wow Al Sharpton actually said that? Jesse Jackson said what he said? I guess those individuals miss being in the limelight again or are bored. At least Jackson said something that was funny.

Wow, I'm glad I'm not dead too! Ten pages and counting of the "blame game", useless babble! Hear that the Congresswoman is breathing on her own today, good sign but recovery is a long road, I pray she recovers fully and leads a normal life.

They are. Just not in N.Y. and that didn't stop the insane creep that shot up the civic building in Binghamton almost 2 years ago. 14 dead. Not political. Just insane. If you think your Govt. can protect you from crazy people and random acts of violence by passing laws you are very wrong. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Everyone should be armed. The good people still outnumber the bad by a large margin.

Nothing like babbling uselessly about useless babble. Congrats!

[quote=dellinger63;741743]I guess we'll have to go with the facts. He did go towards gunshots with a gun in his pocket and not in his hand. Call me crazy but even if he had drawn and went towards the gunshots he's a hero in my mind.

To you it somehow matters and that seems even more odd to me now.[/QUOTE

Sigh. My head hurts.

It makes no difference to me in thinking he is a hero or not. Whether his gun was drawn or not makes no difference to me either (and he gets credit for being smart enough not to pull it out and display it)

I simply was wondering if he didn't have a gun at all on his person, would he still have gone towards shots?

Sigh. No, Dell, I do not. You see, one conversation was about, "Did the Sheriff really say those words, or not"?

Now, I was trying to start a nice - but different - conversation with you about what different people view as violent (or not) rhetoric in the political context.

I have no idea how you think changing a subject is hypocritical. I give up. I will quote you at your finest:

I'm not ready to get rid of laws that say robbery and murder are punishable offenses, thanks. I do suspect there is a bit of a deterrent factor there.