AZ Congresswoman in critical condition after shooting

[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

[Riot]

is a far better example of ‘vitriolic rhetoric’ as opposed to putting bulls eyes on a poster.

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?

[Riot]

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.

Joe Zamudio, was in a nearby pharmacy -- armed -- when the shooting began. He rushed over and helped subdue the killer:

"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

Zamudio has no professional or military training with weapons. He also, according to the Arizona Daily Star, didn't initially pull out his own weapon because he was afraid of being confused as a second gunman.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think Kanjorski's, "Put him against the wall and shoot him." - clearly over the top. You?

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

[Riot]

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?

[SOREHOOF]

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.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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

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.