LizardKing

The weak and mentally ill? Perhaps. Columbine, anyone? Etc., etc., etc. It certainly desensitizes one to violence. Many studies have proven that. I am NOT advocating suppressing free speech. I AM advocating personal responsibility. Something that the GOP -- ironically and despite all evidence to the contrary entitled "the party of personal responsibility" -- fails to understand in the least.

Either the hate/violence-filled rhetoric of the past two years did influence the shooter or did not. If in fact it did not, then we must conclude that what appears to be a politically motivated assassination was simply coincidence; utterly and completely disconnected from the crosshair mentality of the TeaParty movement and Beck-Palin et al. Does anyone think that an objective observer could possibly draw this conclusion? Despite your reservations, Loughner's alleged mental illness did not lead him to shoot up a McDonald's, bomb a state building or even attack a Republican congressman in a state full of lousy Republicans. His target was a Democratic Congresswoman who had been targeted by the violent rhetoric of Tea Party. I know you TeaParty types will deny it furiously (because ignorant, delusional and furious defines the TeaParty mind) but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. The Tea Party used violent language and imagery, as have you yourself, and violence has ensued. Imagine that.

Convince yourself so you can sleep at night. I understand that. Ms Gabby Giffords had her office trashed after the health care vote and Democrat Raul Grijalva in the next district received death threats and his office windows were shot out. A protester was arrested when he dropped his loaded weapon at a Giffords event last year. Her Republican opponent invited conservatives to play with M-16s at an anti-Gifford fundraiser at a shooting range. Tea Partiers openly threatened violence against Democrats: http://tinyurl.com/We-came-unarmed-this-time Everyone remembers this and knows that it happened. We all lived through it in real time. GOPers can’t wish away memories by raging at liberals or blaming Obama. HH, the way you conservatives are reacting it seems as if you think you can just deny reality and wait for this to blow over. Y'all treating it like a garden variety wingnut freak out, just making stuff up and hoping no one notices they're lying. I don't think you/they've fully comprehended how serious this is. Do you really want to relive the 1960s? Remeber that Neal Horsely, in defending his Nurumberg Files that listed the names and addresses of abortion doctors, then crossing them out with blood as they were executed, explained he never asked anyone to kill anybody, but simply put it up as a warning - in the best interests of the doctors, really - of what was in store for them. And he never asked anyone to kill them, but was talking about their just punishment in the afterlife. Yeah, riiiiiiight. But hey HH, burying your head in the sand instead of being an adult and assisting in fixing the problem is infinitely easier, innit? I am sure I have read you condemning moderate, non-violent (i.e., all) Muslims for not condemning the radicals in their midst. How is this not the same? If people like Palin & Beck want to exercise their power of free speech with incendiary remarks, slogans, etc., more power to them; it is their right. But please don't expect sane thinking people to give them a pass when violence occurs. And that's regardless of whether *this* killer was influenced by such or not. Why do a scrub of one's website if one isn't feeling even a tad bit guilty? Palin's "cross hairs" map came back to haunt her with the victim's own words in last year's interview...and that's the clincher. R7046bo92a4

Dave, think about it like this: If Henry II's statement "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest", tho' clearly without intent for it to happen, was enough for him to be blamed for Thomas Becket's death, shouldn't the same criteria be used to judge today's hatemongers? Note I am not advocating any legal repercussions. Indeed, is true that the Supreme Court has emphatically held in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the First Amendment bars the government from punishing people even for explicit advocacy of violence except where it's designed and likely to result in "imminent" violent acts (the fire in a theatre thing). I just expect people to own their actions and be responsible. And be shunned for their actions by the more reasonable amongst us. But sadly I feel that is too much to ask of wingnuts.

I think you misunderstand. I am not holding them "personally responsible" but they and their ilk as a group do share the blame. I do not think they really want blood running in the streets, but they encourage the nutters who can't make that distinction as I said. When you start saying "2nd Amendment solutions" and "watering the tree of liberty with blood" and dreaming about "poisoning Pelosi" and encouraging folks to bring firearms to political rallies while saying these things, that's a HUGE issue in my mind. And crosses the line. I understand what you are saying, but as Chappy said, free speech comes with responsibility, it is not carte blanche to do anything at all. I.e., it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theatre (if there is none) for a reason...

You should be blaming them. A person who has mental problems and anti-government delusions who's been fed a steady diet of "Second Amendment solutions," maps with elected officials marked with cross-hair targets, TeaParty candidate election appearances advertised by asking people to come with loaded automatic rifles, and the entire Republican Party and their TeaBaggers running a very well-crafted anti-government campaign. Yes he's crazy, and those are the people soaking up the poison being vomited up by the Republicans, the tea baggers and conservatives. Make no mistake, Limbaugh, Palin, et al, have gone over all this with their lawyers and they no exactly how close to the line they can get. So when something like this happens they can shrug and say, "Not my fault." Anyone with a brain knows otherwise. And sorry Choco, but “both sides†don't have a 24/7 hate television network and hate radio spreading lies and whipping up the fear and anger in their audience week after week. And there aren't any Democratic politicians out there doing what Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann and company have done with repeating eliminationist rhetoric at every opportunity. The right wingnuts own this completely.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?partner=rss&emc=rss http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_88b4b436-1b53-11e0-8354-001cc4c002e0.html Wow -- only a start of things to come IMHO. She's only the second Representative to ever be murdered in office - the first being Rep. Leo Ryan, who was murdered by Jim Jones cult members when investigating Jonestown. And she was not even a hardcore lefty as she loved her some 2nd Amendment; but we are talking about AZ who desperately wants to out crazy TX & OK. What an atrocity -- any politician who went on about "second amendment remedies" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will" in the past election should resign... It is gonna get ugly out there over the next few years. I am afraid that this is just the start of the body count, and that this will make the 60s look tame. And I am sure that the shooter was undoubtedl­y in Arizona's well-regul­ated state militia... 2nd Amendment snark> And thus it starts.

New state motto: "Arizona: doing all it takes to out crazy TX & OK!"

Peter Boyle ( )... sZ-aRwEbp5I

Because they have given control of the press to the wingnuts and failed to make the public that the GOp are simply blocking everything using arcane rules? The Dems own fault for failing to get out the message, yes. But the blame lies squarely at the feet of the "Just say NO!" GOP. Plus failing to get out the message that and in April, we saw more jobs created than at any point in four years, the Dems fail in getting out the message that they are doing good. Just like the Dems in LoS, actually. If the message were out here, the red shirts would be just a bad memory.

Ah, well there ya go. That reference went right over me 'ead...

Alec Guiness was born in London AFAIK...

"The Other Guys". Typical stupid Will Farrell movie, but pretty damn funny for the first 2/3. It wasn't as good near the end. "Killers" with Ashton Kuchner & Tom Selleck. Awful. Give it a miss, even if stuck on an airplane as I was .

My cock is very handsome, and of the perfect size: on the quite positive side of mean, but nae so big as to scare the young girls away; indeed big enough to make them want to try him because their BF is of inadequate measure. But he's friendly, not fear inducing. And he makes anyone's mouth look good...even your's ACA! The real question is whether he wants to go there or not. In both previous examples, he's said: "I think not, and don't fuck with me by using any drugs either; I'll get even." That's enough warning for me. I may be stupid, but I'm not dumb. Or something like that. Case closed. Now the bonnie blonde lassie in the flag bikini (I have doubts about her Scot ancestry, but don't care at all) has carte blanche: he has stated to me that he's game for anything she wants to do with him, as long as it ends up with him shooting into one of her three holes...

No wonder y'all concentrate on good whisky. With or without the "e." Sadly, a Google search supports this.

So our take from this is that Scotland has ONE hot looking gal every generation? Sad indeed...

Even Rabbie knows what she's on about...but my cock would look good in her mouth!

Hey HH, here's a nice paper about this very subject. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf It was written by such notable commie-pinko institutions as the Naval War College, Commonwealth Club & Brookings.

I could give a fuck what the GOP thinks. Actually, I'd take bets on if they DO think. Soros runs/owns CBS? 5555555555555 And you have the NERVE to rag on me about not sourcing. But hey, he's a great GOP boogyman. Like ACORN, and Move-On and brown people, and the ACLU. They make you a-skeered, do they? Of course, that's not hard. GOPers live off of fear. For the umpteenth time, I'll issue the challenge. You've never risen to it before, so I shan't think you will this time, just run your mouth (but I'm a sporting fellow): give me 5 example of liberal bias in the mainstream media, over a week -- if it is so biased, that should be extremely easy. If you do, I'll give you 5x that amount the opposite way to win. "Liberal" media is a myth and you know it. Prove me wrong.

Why I hate the GOP and their corporate-run media, #36,936: Last week, a unanimous Senate Republican caucus blocked the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. It's the bill that intended to pay health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers, sickened after exposure to the toxic smoke and debris. For the GOP, it was a simple calculus -- they'd consider bills like this, just as soon as they'd secured tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. At this point, the only broadcast news outlet that's jumping all over this story is, oddly enough, Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," which has aired multiple segments. Last night, Jon Stewart took Republicans to task for the callousness, and also blasted ABC, NBC, and CBS for completely ignoring the issue on their evening news casts. In fact, the host noted in last night's show that the only network to run a thorough report on the 9/11 health bill was ... Al Jazeera. "Our networks were scooped with a sympathetic Zadroga Bill story by the same network that Osama bin Laden sends his mix tapes to," Stewart noted. Not done there, "The Daily Show" also hosted an on-air discussion with four 9/11 responders, all of whom are suffering health problems believed to be caused by the air they breathed in the aftermath of the attacks. The segment was pretty devastating, and well worth watching. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/9-11-first-responders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster US news sources are pretty sad when a comedy show does a better job of reporting news & facts than they do. Yet wingnuts still claim that the US media is left wing. The mind boggles.

That just proves once again that GOPers never have an original thought. Monkey see, monkey do.

Tray dis: http://www.thai360.com/fbb/showpost.php?post/845800/ Un to dat I'd add, skip anythin' affer dat. Like this: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xa4Ldjs42Y&feature=fvw" (ya, da dash is bolded ya eejit) Just add the bold into the box when you click the "youtube" thingy above the input box, eh? OK ya cunt?

OK, as usual Frash, you win. That was feckin' brilliant!

I've no issue with that. If all is good, then all will enjoy what the rest of the civilized word does...

LOL! Forced participation was a part of the Bush proposal. Thus it makes these two things identical. You cannot support one without supporting the other. Also LOL, speaking of eating produce, maybe Judge Vinson should look up Wickard v. Filburn. And Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States while he's at it. Both seal this case for the ACA. It's not that the mandate goes further than Wickard, it's just that the mandate is slightly different from Wickard. There's no slippery slope, and the government doesn't really have any powers that it didn't have all along. If the Commerce Clause can forbid you from growing wheat because that will cause you not to buy wheat for other purposes, or if the Commerce Clause can force you to offer a room at your motel to "people of color" even though you don't want to, then it can already force you to do things you might otherwise not want to do. I imagine you're right that the government's lawyers will need to think up some plausible limiting principle, but it seems to me that the actual principle is already in place: does your activity or inactivity have a substantial effect on interstate commerce? In Wickard, in Heart of Atlanta, and now with the individual mandate, the answer is yes. You can invent a slippery slope if you want, but I don't think it really exists anywhere except in your imagination.