The unseemly rush to blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and Republicans for murder in Arizona

TexasBlue wrote:Please provide documentation of Tea Partier's wielding weapons at an appearance by Obama.

You're going on with this 'inciteful behavior' ending peacefully till yesterday. You seem to have placed this guy into the Tea Party category already.

Let's address the behavior of these Tea Partiers also.

Townhalls? Never were no blows taken that I heard of. Contentious? Yep and with a good reason. When the representatives of this country ignore the majority of their constituents, they have a right to be pissed.

Find some stuff on April 19.

If people have the right to bear arms, then there's nothing anyone can do about it as long as these people are abiding by the law.

I never said this person was a Tea Partier. I never even said squat about him other than he was guilty. Please don't read more into my words than what is there. That in itself is inciteful. I was talking about what cable said. You were awful quick to jump on him for his opinion. I merely suggested that he had a point - the point being that there is just too much BS being spewed about. And (as usual) dblboggie only proves my point as his post was completely pointless (as usual)... Of course, there's rhetoric from both sides. What I said was, since Obama began his campaign for President, the most heated rhetoric (by far) has come from the right. That is fact. The town-halls bear that out. Sarah Palin bears that out. Rush Limbaugh bears that out. Fox News bears that out. And yes, people brandishing firearms, simply because they can, bears that out. If the right can't acknowledge that - and acknowledge that it could be construed as inciteful - they're not living in reality. IMO, that was what cable was trying to say.

And you wonder why he doesn't post more...

i_luv_miley wrote:I never said this person was a Tea Partier. I never even said squat about him other than he was guilty. Please don't read more into my words than what is there. That in itself is inciteful.

True. But that wasn't inciting either.

i_luv_miley wrote:I was talking about what cable said. You were awful quick to jump on him for his opinion. I merely suggested that he had a point - the point being that there is just too much BS being spewed about.

You seem to forget that this is a political forum. Of course I'm going to jump. It's politics.

i_luv_miley wrote:And (as usual) dblboggie only proves my point as his post was completely pointless (as usual)...

Is that even necessary? He made his point and, imo, it was a good point. There was no instigation in it either.

i_luv_miley wrote:Of course, there's rhetoric from both sides. What I said was, since Obama began his campaign for President, the most heated rhetoric (by far) has come from the right. That is fact. The town-halls bear that out. Sarah Palin bears that out. Rush Limbaugh bears that out. Fox News bears that out. And yes, people brandishing firearms, simply because they can, bears that out. If the right can't acknowledge that - and acknowledge that it could be construed as inciteful - they're not living in reality.

That's an opinion from someone on the left. If you ask every right winger in this country, they'd see it 100% different.

i_luv_miley wrote:IMO, that was what cable was trying to say.

Nope. Cable said,

that mayhap it's cos the killer was seen as a true hero of the Tea Party from the get go..

and that was unnecessary.


Then he said,

mayhap last year's photos of armed-Tea Party-gunmen waiting to hear Obama speak at those town hall chats.

and I asked him to back it up. He couldn't.

This is debate here. You take offense at anything that someone says that you disagree with. I ask people to back up there claims. Because they say something doesn't make it fact.

i_luv_miley wrote:And you wonder why he doesn't post more...

No, I never wondered that. Again, that is pointless in this discussion.

TexasBlue wrote:Here's how I see it. when I first saw the ad last year (via the internet), I never even remotely thought of gun crosshairs. It never entered my mind. I'm sure with most people, it never did... even those who hate her.

I believe it came down to people trying to find something (and insinuate) something that wasn't intended to be there. That insinuation came from those who oppose her.

According to Sarah herself, it was a "bullseye."

http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/29677744457

Sarah wrote:Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)

kronos wrote:According to Sarah herself, it was a "bullseye."

http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/29677744457

Sarah wrote:Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)

Then why didn't she use a bullseye instead? She could've borrowed it from the Democratic Leadership Committee's website.

The above map appeared on the website of the Democratic Leadership Committee back in 2004. Note of the use of the word 'enemy' to refer to Republicans, as well as the phrase 'ripe targets for Democrats.'

And guess what? That map is still there. http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
For how long is anybody's guess.

Oh, then there's this:

This map was posted on the website of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about a year ago. Again, bullseye's with a legend that said the bull's eyes represented 'targeted Republicans.' Congressman Chris Van Hollen was quick to make an appearance on MSNBC with Chris Matthews to condemn the Palin Map. He said that it was "really dangerous to try to make your point in that particular way."

Christ Van Hollen was the leader of the DCCC when the above map was placed on their website.

i_luv_miley wrote:I was talking about what cable said. You were awful quick to jump on him for his opinion. I merely suggested that he had a point – the point being that there is just too much BS being spewed about. And (as usual) dblboggie only proves my point as his post was completely pointless (as usual)... Of course, there's rhetoric from both sides. What I said was, since Obama began his campaign for President, the most heated rhetoric (by far) has come from the right.

No that was not Cable’s point. This is exactly what he said:

cable2 wrote:...the killer was seen as a true hero of the Tea Party from the get go..

That does not make the point you state as underlined above. It’s not even close. Cable said what he said and he was asked by the Moderater to explain himself which he did not do.

As I said earler, in direct address to Cable’s false assertion as quoted above, this assailant was a complete unknown to anyone in the Tea Party, and there's not a single scrap of evidence to the contrary.

As for the bit in red above, you assert that the most heated rhetoric is on the right and I previously said that this is not true.

Here are some examples of the rhetoric on the left, from the President of the United States no less – who really should be setting a better example:

This is what Obama said on June 14, 2008 at a Philadelphia fundraiser “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl.”

Other heated rhetoric from Obama “Get in Their Faces!” On ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” “Hit Back Twice As Hard!” “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“ Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat” Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.” Obama to Democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

Had that first line been said by a Republican, it would have been front page news. Had this been said by someone like Rush Limbaugh, the Democrats would be screaming for his head.

Here are some more examples of heated rhetoric from the left calling for the death of certain persons on the right.

From National Public Radio legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg: [I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.

From USA Today syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux, on Clarence Thomas: I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.

Washington Post syndicated columnist Richard Cohen: For hypocrisy, for sheer gall, [Newt] Gingrich should be hanged.

Talk show host Craig Kilborn [Caption under footage of George W. Bush]: Snipers Wanted

Members of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club: And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq “We have our good days and our bad days.” We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say “This is one of our bad days” and pull the trigger.

So I ask you, is the rhetoric on the right any more heated than this? I would submit that it is not.

If you can provide some examples of rhetoric on the right that is worse than calling for someone's death, I'd be more than happy to read it - but a simple assertion that "the most heated rhetoric (by far) has come from the right" is not a fact, it is an opinion. Facts are the quotes above from those on the left - that is proven heated rhetoric, not my opinion.

Tex: I have no idea why Sarah referred to a crosshairs as a bullseye, but her comment makes it clear that those aren't "surveyor's symbols" on the map.

But you are right to point out that the Dems have used the same symbolism: that of shooting your enemies dead.

When politicians hint at using violence, they should not be shocked if some people think they actually mean what they say.

See, there are two things being said in the Sarah target map and the maps you've cited: 1) vote the "enemy" out of office, and 2) shoot the enemy dead.

Now, only one of these is meant to be taken literally. (I hope). The other, the viewer is expected to have the sophistication to see it as a metaphor.

But not only do some people lack that sophistication; there are also no doubt people who would think ads like these are addressed to them personally.

Politics are so heated nowadays, and there are so many nuts out there, you've really got to be careful what you say. Framing political rhetoric in violent or even metaphorically violent terms does not help AT ALL.

Totally agreed. My whole stance in this thread is about how the right is being vilified by this shooting when there's nothing to suggest that this guy acted on the rhetoric across the nation. I hate to say it but I won't hold back anymore on this. The left has used this shooting to vilify the right when there's no basis for it. Is there rhetoric by the right? You bet and it can get nasty. Is there rhetoric by the left? You bet and it can get nasty.

I've been reading boatloads of stuff in the last 36 hours on this alone.... the blanket accusations by left wing blogger and even media folks from major newspapers and television anchors. If I was on the left, I would be doing a Micheal Jackson Moonwalk away from my ideological pals until more info is known from the investigation. We know nothing, really. The FBI isn't done yet.

To suggest that Palin wanted this to happen, to suggest that the right is jumping for joy is irresponsible.

We have a serious problem in this country with ideology and it's not exclusive to the right wing either.

i_luv_miley wrote:This is precisely why we need to have the other section remain open... We obviously still have a major problem in here. What cable said may have been out-of-line, but he had a point.

The point is that we should be disagreeing but still be respectful of other's points of view. So far that has been the case. cable2 has no evidence that this guy was what he said he was. Aside from being offensive, if is also libellous.

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:According to Sarah herself, it was a "bullseye."

http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/29677744457

Sarah wrote:Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)

Then why didn't she use a bullseye instead? She could've borrowed it from the Democratic Leadership Committee's website.

The above map appeared on the website of the Democratic Leadership Committee back in 2004. Note of the use of the word 'enemy' to refer to Republicans, as well as the phrase 'ripe targets for Democrats.'

And guess what? That map is still there. http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
For how long is anybody's guess.

Oh, then there's this:

This map was posted on the website of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about a year ago. Again, bullseye's with a legend that said the bull's eyes represented 'targeted Republicans.' Congressman Chris Van Hollen was quick to make an appearance on MSNBC with Chris Matthews to condemn the Palin Map. He said that it was "really dangerous to try to make your point in that particular way."

Christ Van Hollen was the leader of the DCCC when the above map was placed on their website.

Good find, Tex!

cable2 wrote:mayhap it's cos the killer was seen as a true hero of the Tea Party from the get go..

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I hope you didn't mean it the way that sounded cable2.

I'm giving you a chance to explain yourself so please do so.

I am sorry I was pulled away yesterday so could not give a fuller answer to Tex's post..

when I first hear the news of the shooting.. I was shocked and did not understand so I did a Yahoo blog search to see what opinions there was out there [this was before the media came out with their claims] the first blog I found was from some one who said he was in the Tea-Party.. this guy deafened the shooting by using the same claim as the Abortion clinic bomber.. "the act was to save lives".. i.e.. Obama's health-care.. I am sorry when I went the blog today to bring a true copy of what the guys said here.. I found the blog has been removed.

I also need to apologize to Tex as I did not have enough time to give him a better photograph to armed tea-party members protesting Obama's health-care, then the flicker link I posted

___________________________________________________________________________________________

O' Golly Gum Drops... as I was writing my reply I found the time limit [ I never knew I was under any Time-Limit ] had just ended.. there was NO intent on my part to give offence to the group.. as I said, I pulled away from my computer last night, so could not continue the debate with Tex

[quote="The_Amber_Spyglass"]

cable2 wrote:You've had 24 hours to justify this or correct it and you haven't done so.

Considering most offensive posts are edited within a few hours, I think a whole day (especially when you posted a couple of times after that post in question) is more than enough time personally.

Perhaps you would be better off backing up your statements at the time of posting when you make such contentious statements.

BubbleBliss wrote: Good find, Tex!

Glad you approve.

Seriously, I knew this was going to happen once this story became a major issue Saturday afternoon. I started doing my homework late Saturday.

cable2 wrote:tea party arizona

Here's some pics from the Gilbert arizona tea parties. Note the armed status
of many of the protesters. The frightening aspect is that police presence
was limited to a single police officer for the gather of 300.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34337264@N06/3445152767/

TexasBlue wrote:You said that there were armed Tea Partiers waiting to hear Obama speak at those town hall chats. No Obama appearance there. Try again.

as i said in another post I was sorry that i did not have enough time to give a better view of my words then the flicker link I gave.


___________________________________________________________________________________________________


Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Guns At Obama Town Hall Meetings

It started of in New Hampshire last week. A guy with a loaded pistol strapped to his leg in the protester crowd. Law enforcement could do nothing; the guy had a permit.

It's happened a few times since then, culminating this past weekend in Arizona when some anti-Obama protester showed up strapped with a loaded semi-automatic rifle. Again, all perfectly legal.

And why was he there? His quote: "We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

Yeah, I'm troubled. This country has a rather prolonged history with political violence, and -- with the exception of some radical bombings in the 1960's -- almost all of it, and certainly all of it in the past 30 years, has come from the gun-toting NRA-loving right wing crowd.

I know, I know. Second Amendment and all that. But this isn't a discussion about rights. The Second Amendment, very broadly, gives one the right to have guns for self-defense. Well, what kind of self-defense is needed by right-wingers at an Obama town hall meeting? It's not as if liberals arm themselves to the teeth, or froth at the mouth making violent protests.

It seems to me that the presence of guns at political rallies is intended to send a subtle, subconscious signal to ratchet up the already overheated political debates. I mean, when a guy with an assault rifle shows up at a presidential event, saying that he will resist the will of the majority, he's not talking about self-defense. He's talking about violent overthrow of the government.

UPDATE: Yes, these people are dangerous:

Ernest Hancock, the online radio host who staged an interview with an assault rifle-wielding associate at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday -- and was himself armed with a 9 millimeter pistol -- was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s.

And in an interview today with TPMmuckraker, Hancock said he still believes the Viper Militia case was "manufactured" by the same government that manufactured Waco and lied to its people about 9/11

http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/guns-at-obama-town-hall-meetings.html it may also be useful to our debate if you where to read many of the comments posted back in 2009

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Protester With Gun Outside Obama Town Hall (VIDEO)





___________________________________________________________________________________________________


Protester with gun outside Obama's New Hampshire town hall explains himself
Published: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 6:42 PM Updated: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 1:47 PM

When you go to a presidential event with a gun strapped to your hip, it's a safe bet that you're going to be asked questions about it.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews questioned William Kostric about his decision to wear a handgun while protesting near the location of Pres. Obama's New Hampshire town hall event Tuesday.

Kostric also carried a sign quoting referencing Thomas Jefferson's famous quotation, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The sign read: "It is time to water the tree of liberty!"


When asked if his gun was loaded, Kostric said "Who'd be silly enough to Carry an unloaded firearm?"

At another point in the interview, when asked if he thought the event would be safer if 1,000 people had been carrying guns, Kostric answered, "Absolutely."

[ The MSNBC's video can be seen http://blog.masslive.com/thefray/2009/08/protester_with_gun_outside_oba.html ]


___________________________________________________________________________________________________



Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal
August 17, 2009

A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying weapons while demonstrating outside President Obama's speech to veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken. It was the second instance in recent days in which weapons have been seen near presidential events.

Video from the protest in Phoenix, Arizona, shows the man standing with other protesters, with the rifle slung over his right shoulder.

Phoenix police said authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying weapons while peacefully demonstrating.



http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-17/politics/obama.protest.rifle_1_protesters-weapons-assault-rifle?_s=PM:POLITICS

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

and this list of armed Tea-Party members awaiting Obama can go on and on and on

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Considering most offensive posts are edited within a few hours, I think a whole day (especially when you posted a couple of times after that post in question) is more than enough time personally.

Perhaps you would be better off backing up your statements at the time of posting when you make such contentious statements.

mayhap a whole day is more then enough.. but when do's that day start??

1) when one posts...
2) when some other member post their hurt feelings...
3) when the poster is informed of the offence...

in me defense.. I never knew I was under such penalty until I returned only a couple of minuets before that time limit ran out.. nor did I know others where was hurt by my post.. but what I did know was.. that my post needed to be expanded.. and that expansion was what I was trying to do when I returned today.

as for my crime.. I is sorry if me post hurt.

TexasBlue wrote:Here's how I see it. when I first saw the ad last year (via the internet), I never even remotely thought of gun crosshairs. It never entered my mind. I'm sure with most people, it never did... even those who hate her.

I believe it came down to people trying to find something (and insinuate) something that wasn't intended to be there. That insinuation came from those who oppose her.

kronos wrote:According to Sarah herself, it was a "bullseye."

http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/29677744457

Sarah wrote:Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)

Tex.. it matters not if you or I watch the ad and did not see gun crosshairs.. nor do's it matter if you and I read Palin's use of the word "bullseye" and did not think of shooting.. cos Tex, you and I is not mentally unstable

What pisses me off is how some are quick to label anyone who believes in protecting constitutional rights (all of them, including the 2nd amendment) as some kind of Tea Party radical (or whatever the new terms is). There’s nothing radical about wanting to see the letter and spirit of our constitutional rights protected. And what irritates me even more is when the same people who cry “politics of fear” when it comes to national security use those exact same politics to advance their agenda domestically, whether it be over guns, health care or the environment. One thing is certain here. You're living in England and don't have a fair grasp to what's going on here no more than I do with European or British politics. If you use nothing but blogs to advance your point, then that can be a problem.

Number one, there were no arrests or any violence at any of these TP rallies. None. There were no blatant threats of any kind.

Two, none of these people were within any distance of the president. You seem to have no grasp on how tight security is around the US President. These people were on private property.

Three, I find it interesting that video of the man with the AK-47 and that you posted the vid from an MSNBC feed. Well, it turns out that the MSNBC broadcast was bogus. They whined about "white" folks at the rally and had a video feed of this guy. But OOOOPS. They didn't let the camera pan to show who he was.



Why were “Kill Bush” signs at leftist protests over the past eight years okay? Huh? I'm sooooooo happy that outlets like MSNBC and the Huffington Post took such “blunt, no-argument stances” against that sort of insanity at the time.















http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/why-was-anti-bush-protest-and-signs-patriotic-but-now-anti-obama-protest-and-signs-are-anti-america/question-903277/

i_luv_miley wrote:What cable said may have been out-of-line, but he had a point.

dblboggie wrote: No he did not. He said:

cable2 wrote:...the killer was seen as a true hero of the Tea Party from the get go..

dblboggie wrote: This guy was a complete unknown to anyone in the Tea Party, and there's not a single scrap of evidence to the contrary. His own YouTube sight had barely any views, and only 3 entries if I recall correctly. The guy is clearly mentally unwell and has been for years according to people who had contact with him.

you is useing hindsight to question my post.. at the time of my posting, there was less info on who or what the shooter was.. and as I said in another post.. when I first heard the news of the shooting I did a Yahoo blog search.. the first blog I read was from a guy who said HE was in the tea-pary.. and the guy defened the shooter.

dblboggie wrote:And there were no town hall meetings that Obama attended that had armed citizens. Anyone with any familiarity of how Presidential appearances are set up know full well that the Secret Service would never allow such a thing to occur.

Cable's comments were completely out of line and had no basis in fact. THAT is the kind of stuff that we should all object to here. It is not productive to peddle pure fiction as "fact."

Man With Gun Shows Up for Obama Town Hall and Police Let Him Stay
By Sheryl H. Salomon on Aug 11th 2009 7:06PM


http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/08/11/obama-town-hall-protester-with-gun/2

so is me "comments were completely out of line" ?

i_luv_miley wrote:Okay, the main person to blame is the person who pulled the trigger. I think we all agree on that. But there has been so much rhetoric and BS flying around for the past two years that IMO, something like this was inevitable. As for who was doing the rhetoric, yeah both sides are guilty. But the most heated rhetoric, by far, came from the right. The crosshairs thing was meant to incite people, nothing more. Did it lead to yesterday's event? Not necessarily... But it didn't help. And what about those Obama appearances in 2009 where people came bearing arms? It may have been their "right" to do so, but it also sent one hell of a message. Until that kind of behavior ceases, I see more problems. People need to take responsibilty for their words and actions (and quit hiding behind the Constitution) and they just need to chill out!

dblboggie wrote:I disagree with this assessment. I can find plenty of very reprehensible rhetoric coming from the left - liberal pundits wishing the death of conservative people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clarence Thomas, Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich, Rep. Henry Hyde, Sen. Jesse Helms, Gary Bauer and the entire Cuban section of Miami. And that's just the rhetoric calling or wishing for the deaths of conservatives. That doesn't even begin to touch on the many examples of liberal pundits calling conservatives Nazi's, fascists, racists, anti-American, homophobes, and so very much more.

me thinks you will have to go far see an armed anti-Bush turn up to any of his political meetings.. you will also find the call was for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, ect be brought before a court of law for their crimes, not shoot them.

dblboggie wrote:Both sides have plenty of heated rhetoric and to say one is more heated than another is not only untrue, it is not constructive to civil discourse.

This shooter was a nut case, for all we know he was getting his instructions from a dog. No one here knows what motivated this guy and we may never know. Unless this guy fesses up and tells authorities his motivation for this heinous act, all of this discourse is simply speculation - and I'd say it is speculation that serves absolutely no purpose and no good.

The mainstream media are behaving in an irresponsible manner in their coverage of this story in focusing so much attention on pure speculation that targets only one side of the political equation. This is not journalism, it is thinly veiled propaganda. We should not be "guessing" why this man acted - we should wait until the actual facts are out, then we can have a real and productive discourse.

for you to say the words of hate have not effect on any one other then the meantaly ill is a bit off.. words of hate lead to armed men to turn up to Obama's meetings.. words of hate lead to armed men to turn up to anti-Obama protests..

O' by the way, it's your turn to show armed men turning up to anti-Bush protests..

On October 23, US Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) said this about Florida's new Republican Governor Rick Scott:

"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."

One wonders what the reaction would have been if a Republican congressman had called for a Democrat to be put against a wall and shot. I very much doubt it would have been dismissed by Democrats and the national media.

TexasBlue wrote:

This was my last post in this thread unless something is directed at me personally.

The rest of you.... carry on.

O' Golly Gosh, please don't give up.. I was expecting you to comments on the fact.. there where armed Tea-Party member at Obama's town hall meetings.. I was expecting you to comments on the fact.. there where armed Tea-Party members at anti-Obama protests.. I was expecting you to comments on the fact.. there where NO armed protester at anti-Bush rallies.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4e494922-1cef-11e0-8c86-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1AfY2Vuw7

Paranoia disfigures the Tea Party
By Gideon Rachman

Published: January 10 2011 19:46 | Last updated: January 10 2011 19:46



When Gabrielle Giffords’ father was asked if his daughter had any enemies, he replied bluntly – “Yeah. The whole Tea Party.” His comments raised the central political question about the Arizona shootings. Is it fair to link the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords – and the killing of six bystanders – to the current political climate in America? Or was this just a random act of violence from which no wider moral should be drawn?
______________________________________________________

can the Tea-Party carry on in the same way as before???????

cable2 wrote:Is it fair to link the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords – and the killing of six bystanders – to the current political climate in America?

Why speculate when the facts will come out eventually? Then you can actually know.

i_luv_miley wrote:What cable said may have been out-of-line, but he had a point.

dblboggie wrote: No he did not. He said:

cable2 wrote:...the killer was seen as a true hero of the Tea Party from the get go..

dblboggie wrote: This guy was a complete unknown to anyone in the Tea Party, and there's not a single scrap of evidence to the contrary. His own YouTube sight had barely any views, and only 3 entries if I recall correctly. The guy is clearly mentally unwell and has been for years according to people who had contact with him.

cable2 wrote:you is useing hindsight to question my post.. at the time of my posting, there was less info on who or what the shooter was.. and as I said in another post.. when I first heard the news of the shooting I did a Yahoo blog search.. the first blog I read was from a guy who said HE was in the tea-pary.. and the guy defened the shooter.

If there was no or “less” info, then why did you make a blatant accusation with absolutely no substantiating facts?

I was not using hindsight to question your post, I was using the complete lack of any evidence as to the veracity of your accusation that “the killer was seen as a true hero of the Tea Party from the get go” mere hours after the incident and before ANY investigation could even be meaningfully launched.

Why would you just make such a blanket accusation? Do you believe every blogger you read? Do random Yahoo searches of bloggers statements constitute valid research in your mind? This sort of research – and that would be a very loose use of the word research – yields nothing but hearsay statements with absolutely no corroborating evidence. It is irresponsible at best to characterize a Yahoo search of bloggers as “research.”

dblboggie wrote:And there were no town hall meetings that Obama attended that had armed citizens. Anyone with any familiarity of how Presidential appearances are set up know full well that the Secret Service would never allow such a thing to occur.

Cable's comments were completely out of line and had no basis in fact. THAT is the kind of stuff that we should all object to here. It is not productive to peddle pure fiction as "fact."

cable2 wrote:Man With Gun Shows Up for Obama Town Hall and Police Let Him Stay
By Sheryl H. Salomon on Aug 11th 2009 7:06PM


http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/08/11/obama-town-hall-protester-with-gun/2

so is me "comments were completely out of line" ?

Yes... they were out of line, but that was actually aimed at your allegation that the Loughner was a Tea Party hero. However you are also wrong on this point as well. The person in question was not AT the Obama Town Hall meeting. He was outside the venue, well out of reach of the President, attending a protest gathering against the President’s policies.

If one says “I went to the movie” but then only stood outside the theater in the parking lot and saw no movie – can that person rightfully say the went to the movie? No.

So it is with the statement that this man with a firearm attended the Obama event. He did NOT attend the event, he attended a protest rally OUTSIDE the Obama event. Words mean things. The reporter you cite above is purposely deceiving her audience by misrepresenting where this person with the firearm actually was.

i_luv_miley wrote:Okay, the main person to blame is the person who pulled the trigger. I think we all agree on that. But there has been so much rhetoric and BS flying around for the past two years that IMO, something like this was inevitable. As for who was doing the rhetoric, yeah both sides are guilty. But the most heated rhetoric, by far, came from the right. The crosshairs thing was meant to incite people, nothing more. Did it lead to yesterday's event? Not necessarily... But it didn't help. And what about those Obama appearances in 2009 where people came bearing arms? It may have been their "right" to do so, but it also sent one hell of a message. Until that kind of behavior ceases, I see more problems. People need to take responsibilty for their words and actions (and quit hiding behind the Constitution) and they just need to chill out!

dblboggie wrote:I disagree with this assessment. I can find plenty of very reprehensible rhetoric coming from the left - liberal pundits wishing the death of conservative people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clarence Thomas, Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich, Rep. Henry Hyde, Sen. Jesse Helms, Gary Bauer and the entire Cuban section of Miami. And that's just the rhetoric calling or wishing for the deaths of conservatives. That doesn't even begin to touch on the many examples of liberal pundits calling conservatives Nazi's, fascists, racists, anti-American, homophobes, and so very much more.

cable2 wrote:me thinks you will have to go far see an armed anti-Bush turn up to any of his political meetings.. you will also find the call was for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, ect be brought before a court of law for their crimes, not shoot them.

That underlined bit is just not true. Again, you have failed to provide any corroborating evidence for your statement. I did indeed find that the call was NOT for these people to be brought before a court, it was a call for their death.

To wit:

From National Public Radio legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg: [I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.

From USA Today syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux, on Clarence Thomas: I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.

Washington Post syndicated columnist Richard Cohen: For hypocrisy, for sheer gall, [Newt] Gingrich should be hanged.

Talk show host Craig Kilborn [Caption under footage of George W. Bush]: Snipers Wanted

Members of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club: And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq “We have our good days and our bad days.” We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say “This is one of our bad days” and pull the trigger.

Do you see anyone above saying anything about a court?

cable2 wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Both sides have plenty of heated rhetoric and to say one is more heated than another is not only untrue, it is not constructive to civil discourse.

This shooter was a nut case, for all we know he was getting his instructions from a dog. No one here knows what motivated this guy and we may never know. Unless this guy fesses up and tells authorities his motivation for this heinous act, all of this discourse is simply speculation - and I'd say it is speculation that serves absolutely no purpose and no good.

The mainstream media are behaving in an irresponsible manner in their coverage of this story in focusing so much attention on pure speculation that targets only one side of the political equation. This is not journalism, it is thinly veiled propaganda. We should not be "guessing" why this man acted - we should wait until the actual facts are out, then we can have a real and productive discourse.

for you to say the words of hate have not effect on any one other then the meantaly ill is a bit off.. words of hate lead to armed men to turn up to Obama's meetings.. words of hate lead to armed men to turn up to anti-Obama protests..

O' by the way, it's your turn to show armed men turning up to anti-Bush protests..

Where did I say words of hate have no effect on any one? Would be so kind as to point out where I made that statement?

And those armed men OUTSIDE those venues were peaceful protesters. Look above in this thread to see how the left's speech at protests is manifested - the pictures of signs that Tex posted. Sadly, this sort of rhetoric has been going on for years.

cable2 wrote:as I said in another post.. when I first heard the news of the shooting I did a Yahoo blog search.. the first blog I read was from a guy who said HE was in the tea-pary.. and the guy deafened the shooter.

dblboggie wrote:And there were no town hall meetings that Obama attended that had armed citizens. Anyone with any familiarity of how Presidential appearances are set up know full well that the Secret Service would never allow such a thing to occur.

Cable's comments were completely out of line and had no basis in fact. THAT is the kind of stuff that we should all object to here. It is not productive to peddle pure fiction as "fact."

cable2 wrote:Man With Gun Shows Up for Obama Town Hall and Police Let Him Stay
By Sheryl H. Salomon on Aug 11th 2009 7:06PM


http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/08/11/obama-town-hall-protester-with-gun/2

so is me "comments were completely out of line" ?

dblboggie wrote:Yes... they were out of line, but that was actually aimed at your allegation that the Loughner was a Tea Party hero. However you are also wrong on this point as well. The person in question was not AT the Obama Town Hall meeting. He was outside the venue,

Please read my words... it was NOT I who said the shooter was a Tea-Party hero..

the first blog I read was from [b]a guy who said HE was in the tea-party.. and the guy deafened the shooter

as to the your agile tap dance over how close an armed gunman needs to the president to carry the label of being at a presidential meeting.. me thinks any one reading the "at the time" news reports or watch the videos at the links I gave would in all right and conscience agree with the words used by those news reports or the dialog of the videos that "the gunman where AT Obama's town hall meeting" and if you have an objection to the words of the reporters or the commentary of the videos. I would suggest that you write to the editors of the newspapers and a strongly worded letter to the TV news companies to ask them to recant their reports and comply with the understanding you have of the words "the gunman where AT Obama's town hall meeting"

Protester AT Obama healthcare town hall carried 9mm pistol - legally

Maev Kennedy guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 12 August 2009 15.30 BST



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/12/barack-obama-new-hampshire-gun

cable2 wrote:Please read my words... it was NOT I who said the shooter was a Tea-Party hero..

the first blog I read was from [b]a guy who said HE was in the tea-party.. and the guy deafened the shooter

You did say the shooter was a Tea Party hero. You said something like, 'the Tea Party hailed him as a hero from the beginning.' Unfortunately your post has been deleted, so I can't prove it.

(For the record, I respectfully disagree with the decision to delete cable's post, fallacious as it was. It wasn't insulting toward anyone here. And we're still debating it--cable is even denying saying it now--yet we're unable to refer to it. I say fight libel with facts, not by making it disappear.)

Maybe it's a language issue; maybe you meant to say something other than what you said? But of course we have no way of knowing that.

Now, is the guy in the picture holding the "tree of liberty" sign the same guy who was at outside the Obama town hall meeting?

If so, then is he protesting peacefully?

Well...

I'll grant that he looks calm. He is standing behind the yellow police tape. He does not appear to be engaged in the act of rioting.

But anyone who understands the context of that "tree of liberty" reference knows the man's message is anything but peaceful.

What exactly do you water the tree of liberty with, according to TJ?

That's right. With blood. You water it with blood. The blood of patriots and tyrants.

The guy is calling for bloodshed. He wants people with different political views killed. He wants Obama (the tyrant) killed, and accepts that Tea Partiers (the patriots) may have to die to make that happen. He is issuing a call to martyrdom.

If he 'doesn't really mean it,' I'd say he's a dickhead.