AZ Congresswoman in critical condition after shooting

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Riot]

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

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

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?

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.

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.

He's the catalyst that started all this, "You're to blame. No, you're to blame." nonsense.

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.

It accomplishes nothing except to make the chasm wider between the parties.

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

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

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

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?

[dellinger63]

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.

[Riot]

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.

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