LizardKing

"...

And seriously' date=' all this stuff about cross-hairs on a political map and tying it into a schizo killing someone, is reaching..."

 

 

Is it? What was the "real message" she was "trying" to say? Her rhetoric is indeed very similar, or could logically be considered as such, to that of Metzger, who went a step beyond implying people be killed, and just called for it. He claimed free speech as well. [/quote']

 

Yes, it IS reaching. You guys are seriously unfucking believable. Her rhetoric is not logically the same as Metzgers, and if you construe it as such.... yeah.

 

I could probably dig up several of your palin hating posts and twist them to something you didn't intend. And then turn you into the authorities like a good little sheep and say your logic is 'just like Metzgers'

 

You disappoint OH.

 

Metzger. Get the fuck outta here.

Hmmmm. Ya. "Don't retreat. Reload." could mean she just wants the First Dude to cum in her snatch again.

 

But you can't really believe it means anything but the obvious gun violence-based point she was making.

Didn't Dershowitz also defend O.J?

 

Apellate advisor if I remember right. He likes high profile cases. Calls himself a liberal. Approves of torture. Puzzles me a bit how quickly he jumped to Palin's defence.

Dershowitz is about as liberal as Hugh Hoy...

Flash...Barry DID attend a memorial serice at Ft. Hood.

 

Robaus...Bush explained his absence from military funerals in an interview with Stars and Stripes. He explained that he could not possibly attend every funeral of every fallen soldier and that if he attended one' date=' he should attend all. Bush said that he preferred to personally meet privately with the families of those fallen to the extent possible. (Snopes says that he met with 100's of such families.)

 

HH[/quote']

Maybe, but heaven forbid anyone saw that in any media.

 

You expect the liberal media to print it? Give me a break, LK.

 

As for "ethics", I don't think you want to go there. :content:

 

HH

Here's what BushCo thought of the war dead...

 

No photos, by law...

 

Any ethics vis-a-vis GOP v Dems you want to argue, I'm there laughing at how easy it is to win that one.

And seriously, all this stuff about cross-hairs on a political map and tying it into a schizo killing someone, is reaching. I don't like the militant attitude of the far right on a lot of things, but the efforts made to link all these things together is a bit of a stretch. Might as well shut down the Beatles because Manson thought Helter Skelter was his cue to murder.

You're building a strawman. No one is suggesting limiting speech legally (well, the GOP proposed & sadly bipartisan supported in AZ by outlawing the idiots from Westboro Church and even tho' I hate them that was wrong).

People are saying that one should use better judgment in choosing the words/metaphors/etc that they use. Because words have consequences.

You self-censor yourself all the time. For instance, you don't walk into your office and tell your secretary "Get off your ass and make me some coffee, you lazy cunt!" You can bet your ass those words would have consequences! And I am sure you would never consider saying that even if that is what you thought. Same-same here regarding inappropriate metaphors in politics.

Tae a Samosa!

odCD09A1F6E

Flash...Barry DID attend a memorial serice at Ft. Hood.

 

Robaus...Bush explained his absence from military funerals in an interview with Stars and Stripes. He explained that he could not possibly attend every funeral of every fallen soldier and that if he attended one, he should attend all. Bush said that he preferred to personally meet privately with the families of those fallen to the extent possible. (Snopes says that he met with 100's of such families.)

 

HH

Maybe, but heaven forbid anyone saw that in any media. People might think the "war" wasn't worth it or sumptin'! Gotta keep them dollars a-flowing to the M-I-C and the GOPers buddies! Never mind the ethics.

I can't see them nominating her. Not if they want to win. It will have to be a moderate. But she'll demand a price.

Who have they got? No one.

Huckabee? Too fundy X-tian

Mittens? Not Xtian, wears magic underwear

Palin? Just a stupid nutjob who lost any credibility with her teevee show showing her lies

Newt? Puh-leese

Pawlenty? Mr Flip-flop? He was a moderate until he wanted to be POTUS

Who am I forgetting?

He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.

LOL! Except for his anti-government, anti-immigration, gold-standard and other very standard right wingnut-esque rants...

Pelosi and Palin could step off 20 paces and take aim. (I'm only guessing at who would win that one; and I've been known to give "sucker bets".

You are seriously betting on the "outdoorswoman" that took *seven* shots at 50 yards to down a caribou all while having her daddy load her gun for her? On national teevee?

I'll go 20:1 on that LOL!

No one said rappers were smart...

Seems that way, eh? (Regarding 'eards getting elected).

Your last post was a fine example of rationalization and projection. "Oh no, we were just kidding, we didn't mean it. Yadda yadda ya."

I'd have so much more respect for the silly righties in the country (and actually listen to their opinions) if they just owned their obvious positions: "yes, our rhetoric is over the top with all this violence shit;" "yes, we have serious issues with a Negro in the White House;" "Etc." But they try simply silly means to try to mask that which no one buys...

Man up! Own your position, you pussies. *Then* we can talk about meeting in the middle and making the US a better place...

Cop Killer Ice T....anyone?

 

Just words. anyone stupid enough to follow his words is responsible and NOBODY else.

It is a fine line innit? Aiding and abetting is a crime just about anywhere. Is talking someone into doing something illegal a crime? It is when it comes to some things, especially if you are just a prole like most of us. Where to draw the line?

[color:purple]Aiding and abetting is an additional provision in United States criminal law, for situations where it cannot be shown the party personally carried out the criminal offense, but where another person may have carried out the illegal act(s) as an agent of the charged, working together with or under the direction of the charged party, who is an accessory to the crime. Internationally, it is comparable to other laws governing the actions of accessories, including the similar provision in England and Wales under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

It is derived from the United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

( Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Where the term "principal" refers to any actor who is primarily responsible for a criminal offense.[/color] Linkage

So, is a media or other personality saying we need to "kill the opposition" (or some derivative thereof) culpable under this? That's the question, innit? And the whole argument that free speech comes with responsibility.

Where is the line? And what is the case law precedent about this NOT involving famous people? The same rules should apply (tho' we know they never will).

Of course, we would NOT be having this discussion had Reagan not shut down whole psychiatric wards in the US and turned the patients (and their heirs) all loose on society! But hey, the cheap-ass bastard GOPers pay $0.50/yr less in taxes.

[...]For many it's a love affair with the hardware itself. Not sure how that relates to the Arizona shooting[...]

Agreed. Outside that it is a just a fucked up fetish much like spanking girls. But a little spanking is far less damaging to society as a whole (nervously, but genuinely:) LOL

1) Doing so requires ammending the US Constitution.

Not if you actually a) read & comprehend the English language and follow the Amendment's path through Congress.

But we'll let the details slide...

You get it bro'. That's where I am comin' from. And exactly my neighborhood too! But despite all that nasty shit, I am very proud to be from Detroit. Those are MY people, that's MY city. Nothing will change that.

A great bit of truth here from a link in that article: [color:purple]"The ultimate fate of Detroit will reveal much about the character of America in the 21st century. If what was once the most prosperous manufacturing city in the nation has been brought to its knees, what does that say about our recent past? And if it can't find a way to get up, what does that say about our future?"[/color]

WORD!

Anyway, back on subject, here's another guy who gets it. I loves me some Rude Pundit. Tell it brother:

[color:purple]Dear Right-Wingers: You Are All Muslims Now:

Oh, dear, sweet conservative Americans, how you must have shit yourself on Saturday when you heard that someone had shot up an event with a Democratic member of Congress in, of all goddamned places, Arizona. And, worse, a Representative who had voted in favor of health care reform, which you have demonized as nothing short of a resurrection of the Nazi Party. It must have been awful for so many conservatives, thinking, praying, "Please, please, please, don’t let it be some Tea Party dick who says he did it because Glenn Beck told him to. Don’t let it be someone who wants to fuck Sarah Palin and thinks that if he starts taking out her congressional crosshaired targets, he’ll get into her pants."

How you must have heaved in relief when you saw that it would be quite easy to portray Jared Lee Loughner as a raving psychopath, an effort that’s helped a great deal by the apparent truth, which is that Jared Lee Loughner is a raving psychopath. Yeah, he's a psychopath who’s mad rantings are heavily peppered with an insouciant flavor of Beck or Ron Paul or loony conspiracy theory nutsiness, but a psychopath just the same.

Now, ah, yes, now, lovely right-wingers, you could defend yourself. You could work yourselves into a huff about how unjustly you were accused of driving this obviously disturbed individual into an act of calculated, cold-blooded violence. But that's because you're sitting there in your shit-filled underpants, thinking, "I don't believe in violence. I don't approve this. I hope the government doesn't try to crack down on us."

So, welcome, assholes, because you are Muslim now.

How does it feel to stand in Muslim shoes today? Because, right now, yes, you are being treated like suspects. You are being treated like you are guilty of the crimes that are committed by the deranged in your number. Sure, you may think, you can spout all the blood-filled, gun-toting, war-flogging rhetoric you want against citizens of your own country. But those are just words, you know? You can’t, you know, be held accountable for the actions of a few. And, gosh, it’s just wrong to lump you all together, to stereotype you all as criminals in waiting. Like, you know, you have done with Muslims since September 11, 2001.

Here's the deal, though. The vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims decry not only acts of violence, but the rhetoric of it, too. The vast, vast, vast majority of right-wingers not only stay silent as conservatives shoot at targets with their opponents' names or initials on them, talk about revolution and violence, and accuse Democrats of getting ready to put Americans in forced health care camps. No, you embrace your extremists assholes and anoint them your idiot queen.

How will you live with yourselves in the future? Look, heated, vicious rhetoric is part of the political game. But, frankly, there’s a bit difference between saying that you’re going to "target" an opponent and saying that there might have to be "Second Amendment solutions" to the nation’s problems. Let's not do the bullshit dance of false equivalence. While there was a period of time when the left was violent (which was met by officially-sanctioned violence by the government), in the last couple of decades, it hasn't been the left shooting shit up. It wasn't the left who let the assault weapons ban lapse. It wasn't the left that made access to guns as easy as a McDonald's drive-thru. It wasn't the left that cried "Fascism" to background checks for someone who wants to own a fucking machine gun. It wasn't the left that supported preemptive war and violence against individuals as solutions to our nation's problems. Time to welcome your chickens home, conservatives. Open your filthy arms.

So, yeah, yeah, cowering motherfuckers, Jared Lee Loughner was monkeyfuck insane. He wandered in the fringes of conspiracy theories and wallowed in the stinking pit of his own mad brain fluids. You can comfort yourselves and have a shaky drink to that.

But you know what, you ridiculous worms? At the end of the day, the Rude Pundit supports your right to say your stupid shit. And it's ironic that Giffords read the First Amendment during the House's big show last week of reading the Constitution. Free speech ain't a free pass. It never, ever comes without responsibility. You wanna spout crazy, violent shit? You wanna talk about end times and revolution, Glenn Beck? Then man up and know that some people will take you seriously, even if you are just a joke.[/color]

Links? New info to me, and I have been keeping up.

And I am very proud to be a progressive. Or a liberal, as you say. Without us, for example, children would still be working 70 hours a week and the US would look a lot like Thailand. Of course, in a few years we'll be back to that if the GOP has its way...

Once again' date=' I reiterate: the US *needs* to enact laws like Oz, Canada or the UK, removing handguns from the general public. This would not have happened there.[/quote']

 

I think that will involve some kind of national lobotomy.

Sadly 100% correct. Most folks have never seen what a gun can do to people, up close and in reality not a video game. If they did, they'd get it...

 

Having grown up in a place where everyone had guns and no one was safe, a prime reason I prefer to never live in the USA again. I'd seriously do a Pattaya swan dive before moving back there! Those people are simply dangerously insane.

Bed time now. I'll post links to his blogs & youtube pages tomorrow. You tell me. It is as I say (if you can get thru the insanity)...

Here come the gun discussions. I wonder how the NRA will get their heads around all this in the run-up to 2012? It's going to be interesting to see what replaces the gun rhetoric, if anything. Arizona will be the place to watch.

Thanks for mentioning that. BTW, I do so love that once again, this tragedy just assassinates the gun nut meme that "guns save the day." We won't even go into the fact that the guy was expelled from Uni and turned down by the Army because they both thought him to be nuts, but he was still allowed to buy a gun legally in AZ.

AZ prolly has percentage-wise the most people carrying of any state. No one can argue that fact.

What stopped this guy? Someone physically tackling him. No one with a piece -- and I am SURE there were some there -- had the balls to take him on. It took some brave unarmed bastard to do it.

Deffo also supports my call for gun control, and kills the absolutely STUPID argument that guns makes us all safer LOL! Once again, I reiterate: the US *needs* to enact laws like Oz, Canada or the UK, removing handguns from the general public. This would not have happened there.

So even this discrepancy...you believe the report? Seems pretty important to me that they had the right bullet or not. And if there were two, that kills the one-bullet theory, right?

Physics & math do not lie...

I'm confident even the most liberal supreme court would agree that Palin, Rush and company aren't to blame.

I've already agreed to that, even citing case law. I just want them be adults, acknowledge their errors, and to take responsibility for their part in this tragedy and mend their ways. A hopeless wish, I know.

Heck I've heard much worse stuff from Nation of Islam guys with a speaker at a corner in Philly do that for hours every day ad nauseum and no one went out to kill 'whitey'. Trust me, these guys, many of whom were ex cons didn't mince words. They were explicit. Same with some of the stuff you hear from guys out in the middle of Idaho.

And those guys have an audience of a few hundred. Palin, Beck, the TeaParty nuts, etc. have an audience of tens of millions thanks to Faux News. Can you comprehend the difference here? And that is not letting the guys you mentioned off at all, just comparing the damage they caused with a 500# TNT bomb versus the Fat Man nuke...

I'm tellin' ya, if that guy was in a church he'd have done the same thing...

As I told HH, if that makes ya feel good, OK, have at it.

But them's not the facts. He lived in a big city, with plenty of targets a lot closer to home had he just wanted to kill people. Who he chose says a lot. Says it all, in fact.

If you think it was random, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale. Cheap. I have the deed and everything...nudge, nudge, wink, wink! $250k only. You can turn it for $5M easy. Wire me the money and I'll post the deed. Really.

Don't be part of the problem...

I remember the John Birchers back during the 1964 campaign saying that Barry Goldwater wasn't really a conservative. They're right ... in today's Arizona, poor old Barry would be considered a pinko.

Scarily & sadly oh so true. And ol' Barry was a certifiable nutcase rightie (ala McCarthy, but without the commie fetish) in his day...

The "blame it on someone" frenzy reminds me of what I heard when JFK was shot. I was in my first year at UCSB, then a decidedly liberal university with a largely apethetic student body. One of my profs was almost frantic, practically praying that one of those "rightwing nuts" had shot the Prez. Others were echoing the same thoughts. When the assassin turned out to be Lee Oswald, a pro-Castro leftwing loony, you could almost see their faces drop. Many libs even today buy into whacky other assassins theories, determined to make history happen they way they wanted.

 

Ya, the magic bullet that defies physics is quite the reasonable explanation...

[color:purple]The Warren Commission's "single bullet," according to all documentation:

* had no thread striations (fine lines etched onto a copper encased bullet tip and/or bullet side casing by clothing threads when the bullet first penetrates clothing threads),

* was marked with no blood,

* was marked with no human tissue,

* had no pieces of clothing attached,

* had lost only 1.5% of its original average weight,

* had a composition that was consistent with the composition of the metal fragments recovered from Connally (see section on neutron activation analysis).[/color]

Sounds good...if we ignore all we know about ballistics!

LOL! Rallying on about gold standard, states rights, anti-immigration & anti-healthcare is a lefty? Nice try, but simply a bunch of lies. Pure TeaParty rightie shit that is...