Tea Party Opens Fire in Tucson

[LaZeR]

Groans.... Somehow I had this figured out that Joe would be the first to post about this tragedy in here and nonetheless go on a political rant about it. Joe, you are a true patriot.

[truthwolf1]

It's going to happen more often. Regardless if it was a lone nut or not he obviously had some sort of planning involved and has been keeping up with politics. I haven't read this whole thread or everything about him so I can't say whether or not he chose specific targets or not, but it was planned and followed through with. All it takes is one person doing something for other people that have the same mind state or beliefs to pick up on it and try to follow through with a similar plan.

I agree. We are going to see more and more people lose it in the coming year unless there is a 180 in hiring.
No housing, no jobs, no unemployment. People are going to start flipping out when there is nothing left for them.

[Anthony85]

Yeah sure, it'll only be the dems who politicize the event. And "conservative advances" is an oxymoron.

Just look around: every quasi-liberal, democrat-leaning nutjob is coming out of the woodwork to tie a confused (and probably pro-leftist) gunman to a grassroots movement of libertarians and conservatives who want fiscal responsibility and states' rights. Since we have these same quasi-liberal imbeciles in office whose positions are threatened by this same grassroots movement and those of like mind, you can bet that they will use this to their advantage as their numbers drop ever closer to absolute zero toward election time.

And no, conservativism and progress are not mutually exclusive, regardless of what you may see run across your television (read, idiot box). Conservatives seek to maintain the values upon which a culture has been built, hence they have a foundation for progress. Progressives seek to remove this foundation, then build haphazardly in accordance with every fleeting whim and passing fancy. The result? The tearing down of culture, as we are seeing today.

You can yell about oxymorons all you want, it doesn't change facts. Neither will closing your eyes, repeating the mantras of the party line ad nauseum, and throwing taxpayers' money down the toilet at every opportunity.

[sgreger1]

Journalists urged caution after Ft. Hood shooting (don't jump to conclusions about it being terrorism), now race to blame Palin after Arizona shootings



"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out." -- Glenn Beck, May 17, 2005

Arizone Shooter was registered republican.



Why are Democrats calling the Arizona shooter a Terrorist? He rebelled against government entities. That's it. The answer is that any type rebellion must equal terrorism now, a generalization which helps the oligarchy going forward.

[Bigblue1]

Why are Democrats calling the Arizona shooter a Terrorist? He rebelled against government entities. That's it. The answer is that any type rebellion must equal terrorism now, a generalization which helps the oligarchy going forward.

Go to second marker :40 if you don't want to watch the whole thing.

[sgreger1]

Let's remember, this guy was crazy. If you read what he wrote, you will see he is not left or right wing, and likely falls in the middle. He was batshit insane, and was barely inteligable in his writing (kind of like me).



Crazies are always around, and nothing ever changes.



These flyers were handed out right before JFK was shot:

[Darwin]

It's funny really how Progressives rail on about political criticism they label a "culture" of hate when the likes of Maddow, Olbermann, and Matthews hold forth at length in rhetoric that defies any label but hateful. It is a modern media disease that reflexively considers argumentation as hate when it does not square with prevailing media attitudes. Sure the rhetoric is flying, it always has, but there is little or nothing that Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, Beck, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh or any other mainstream media poli-pundit has ever uttered that would "cause" anyone remotely sane to shoot up a group of people attending a political event. There are plenty of fetid niches of the interwebs where invitations to such violence can be noted but they occur in all spectra of political inclinations, left right or otherwise. Even in the unlikely event "evidence" was revealed that some screeching sack of poop was the proximate cause of the Tucson shooter's insane actions there's the little problem of that pesky first amendment to the Constitution that will, and rightfully should, deter sanctimonious restrictions on criticism (speech) with which self-important pundits simply do not agree.

And increasing gun restrictions? Please. The number of crimes, minor or major, perpetrated by those with legal-carry handgun permits or hunting weapons is infinitesimally small. For the unhinged murderous whack-job or even the garden-variety thug the laws against gun ownership could be lined up from here to Mars without the slightest deterrent on their usage in criminal activity. Gun prohibition in this country would be every bit as respected and effective as drug and alcohol prohibition has been.

[Bigblue1]

Even in the unlikely event "evidence" was revealed that some screeching sack of poop was the proximate cause of the Tucson shooter's insane actions there's the little problem of that pesky first amendment to the Constitution that will, and rightfully should, deter sanctimonious restrictions on criticism (speech) with which self-important pundits simply do not agree. And increasing gun restrictions? Please. The number of crimes, minor or major, perpetrated by those with legal-carry handgun permits or hunting weapons is infinitesimally small. For the unhinged murderous whack-job or even the garden-variety thug the laws against gun ownership could be lined up from here to Mars without the slightest deterrent on their usage in criminal activity. Gun prohibition in this country would be every bit as respected and effective as drug and alcohol prohibition has been.

This is what's scary. The fact that they will once again try to use this incident to curtail free speech and toughen gun Laws. Once again Darwin I hear the sound of hammer hitting the nail on it's head.

[sgreger1]

It's funny really how Progressives rail on about political criticism they label a "culture" of hate when the likes of Maddow, Olbermann, and Matthews hold forth at length in rhetoric that defies any label but hateful. It is a modern media disease that reflexively considers argumentation as hate when it does not square with prevailing media attitudes. Sure the rhetoric is flying, it always has, but there is little or nothing that Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, Beck, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh or any other mainstream media poli-pundit has ever uttered that would "cause" anyone remotely sane to shoot up a group of people attending a political event. There are plenty of fetid niches of the interwebs where invitations to such violence can be noted but they occur in all spectra of political inclinations, left right or otherwise. Even in the unlikely event "evidence" was revealed that some screeching sack of poop was the proximate cause of the Tucson shooter's insane actions there's the little problem of that pesky first amendment to the Constitution that will, and rightfully should, deter sanctimonious restrictions on criticism (speech) with which self-important pundits simply do not agree.

And increasing gun restrictions? Please. The number of crimes, minor or major, perpetrated by those with legal-carry handgun permits or hunting weapons is infinitesimally small. For the unhinged murderous whack-job or even the garden-variety thug the laws against gun ownership could be lined up from here to Mars without the slightest deterrent on their usage in criminal activity. Gun prohibition in this country would be every bit as respected and effective as drug and alcohol prohibition has been.

I wish you would write a book just so I could read it to expand my vocabulary. I'm one of those people who has a vast vocabulary and can plow through even the heaviest reading, yet when I write I can barely convince an audience that I have graduated high-school.


Your write: "There are plenty of fetid niches of the interwebs where invitations to such violence can be noted but they occur in all spectra of political inclinations, left right or otherwise."

I write: "There's lots of fags on the internet on both sides"

[raptor]

Worrying about gun laws being modified as a result of this isn't what one should be concerned with (it won't happen). Rather, one should worry that officials may become superprotected citizens with elevated status like the President (i.e. more Secret Service, can't say hate speech against them, etc). This will solidify their positions over the common man and truly separate themselves from their constituency.

As for whether or not the political pundits "cause" these things to happen: no, however their perpetually misinformed hate speech (from both sides, although I'd say more egregiously done by the Coulters and O'Reillys of the US media) may inspire others to take that one step beyond. I don't think what they say should be curtailed at all, it is free speech after all, but it is a sad testament that people flock to whoever Olbermann or Glenn Beck spews from their orifices without making their own rational decisions. They are our modern-day demagogues.

[Darwin]

I wish you would write a book just so I could read it to expand my vocabulary. I'm one of those people who has a vast vocabulary and can plow through even the heaviest reading, yet when I write I can barely convince an audience that I have graduated high-school.

Flatterer. I would write one but there are two big problems. First is that although I love wrangling words to the near exclusion of all else that does not separate me in any way from the thundering herd of wannabe scribes who dream of making a living pounding a keyboard. Second problem is my attention span for a given subject is not adequate for the structuring and discipline needed for book length work. My blog has several pieces that dress out at a couple of thousand words tops and that's about the limit of my rhetorical endurance. Therefore I fear my fate is that of the vast legion of aspirant bloggers which sadly portends little or no remuneration for the urge to fling one's voice into the limitless maelstrom of the WWW. Shoemaker stick to your last as they say and the foot mould that fits me best is the short form primarily exemplified by occasional blogging and what I hope are trenchant observations on fora such as this.

Regarding raptors assertion that: "As for whether or not the political pundits "cause" these things to happen: no, however their perpetually misinformed hate speech (from both sides, although I'd say more egregiously done by the Coulters and O'Reillys of the US media) may inspire others to take that one step beyond. I don't think what they say should be curtailed at all, it is free speech after all, but it is a sad testament that people flock to whoever Olbermann or Glenn Beck spews from their orifices without making their own rational decisions. They are our modern-day demagogues." I will say this. Demagogues who prey on the gullible and weak of intellect have ever been with us and the only difference now is that the feed-back loop is nearly instantaneous as opposed to the days weeks months or even years of previous print only and especially pre-print eras. Therefore with the huge expansion in the sources of information available by comparison with earlier eras we are derelict indeed if we drink from only one or two fonts of opinion. Trouble is most people are not media or literary commentary junkies and are frightfully busy living their lives so they prefer receiving their news and opinion on the quick-serve retail plan and not from the more time consuming and thoughtful wholesale method. Just one more lamentable yet inescapable fact of life today.