AZ Congresswoman in critical condition after shooting

[Riot]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Nice work PD - Facts Matter

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.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

How many "liberal" media outlets actually, truely blamed someone on the right?

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

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!!!

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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

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!!!

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?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

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 highlighted quote part. I posted the videos and that entire direct quote already in this thread. The speaker 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?

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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?

[Riot]

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.

[ArlJim78]

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.

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

This sherriff out there making all the noise about talk radio, and angry rhetoric should be relieved of duty.

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!

[Crown@club]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOaROFFhpL4&feature=fvsr

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

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

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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