AZ shooting fallout. It isnt the Left or Right, its the Elite vs the Peasants.....

[Gonad the Barbarian]

If the Dems use this to try and run through stupid gun legislation they will pay the price. 9/11 changed popular opinion on national security at least for a time, this will not change popular opinion on gun control any more than any other massacre has.

 

[Scotteq]

If the Dems use this to try and run through stupid gun legislation they will pay the price. 9/11 changed popular opinion on national security at least for a time, this will not change popular opinion on gun control any more than any other massacre has.

"Political Opportunism" respects no party lines...

 

[CPA]

If the Dems use this to try and run through stupid gun legislation they will pay the price. 9/11 changed popular opinion on national security at least for a time, this will not change popular opinion on gun control any more than any other massacre has.

And what the Dems either fail to recognize or are hiding is that Giffords was a guns rights advocate.

 

[trenchfoot]

No worries, and hell that position is and was held by both sides. Remember the Democratic outcry when the Republicans pushed through the Patriot Act.....Fast forward a few years and guess who renews it? Yep, the Democrats.

And of course theres been issues that went the other way as well. The Dems would pass it to the outcry and hand wringing of the Repubs only to have the Repubs renew it later on down the road.

I'd like to add here that because of the differing ideologies the two parties have, they're probably using the Patriot Act for different reasons. I'm not inferring in any way that one is using it for good and the other for evil, just different.

Also, as you well know, perspectives change depending on who's in power. IMO that is the primary factor that affects the conditions you described.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

And what the Dems either fail to recognize or are hiding is that Giffords was a guns rights advocate.

That's what will really undermine this, but I don't think there is an attempt to hide the fact, especially with every talking rightwinger letting this be known at every opportunity along with how moderate Giffords has been on other issues. I guess we finally now know what it takes for Fox news to drop the "fair and balanced" and report actual truth on a politician.

 

[bfdd]

If radical righties were such a problem you'd be dead by now. The guy was insane. His political affiliations don't matter for shit.

Pretty much. Unlike some parts of the world we like to shun and discredit our fanatics.

 

[Amused]

That's what will really undermine this, but I don't think there is an attempt to hide the fact, especially with every talking rightwinger letting this be known at every opportunity along with how moderate Giffords has been on other issues. I guess we finally now know what it takes for Fox news to drop the "fair and balanced" and report actual truth on a politician.

You keep making accusations that have no basis in fact. Do you have any proof that Fox ever misrepresented Giffords in the past?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Where is the decency in that?

 

[Throckmorton]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Thank you for posting Rupert Murdoch's unbiased opinion.

 

[bfdd]

Anyone who is trying to make this more than just a crazy person being crazy is a fucking idiot douche bag.

 

[Blackjack200]

It's kind of humorous to see the left and the media (one and the same) taking the opportunity to blame Sarah Palin and the "target" fliers that went out, with no mention of the fact that this guy was a left wing radical communist.

I'm not surprised to see you use the word humerous. But it was Sarah Palin who implicity blamed herself by quietly removing the now infamous webpage from her site. To borrow the WSJ's obnoxious logic below, Ms. Palin either acknowledges that her page was, at minimum, in poor taste, or she lacks the courage to stand behind her ideals when it becomes policially inconvenient. Which is it?

And what the Dems either fail to recognize or are hiding is that Giffords was a guns rights advocate.

Ok, and I guess we can ask her if her opinion has changed if she recovers. Until then we might just have to legislate on behalf of the 300 million people in the united states who would like to go to a shopping mall without being shot in the head.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Well, if we can quote radical right wing sources, a more moderate voice in refutation should be fine:

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.

But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html

 

[Blackjack200]

Thank you for posting Rupert Murdoch's unbiased opinion.

It's good to know that Democrats are the ones politicizing this when we see lines like:

"I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves."

 

[Amused]

Thank you for posting Rupert Murdoch's unbiased opinion.

When you can't address the facts, shoot the messenger.

 

[trenchfoot]

It's good to know that Democrats are the ones politicizing this when we see lines like:

"I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves."

Yeah, and if you look real close at those voters, they're either swinging through the trees or dragging their knuckles on the ground while they're at it....OK, I admit to exaggerating and abuse of creative license just a wee bit to make a point. My bad.

 

[Red Dawn]

Knee jerk reaction much like everybody blaming all Muslims for 9/11

 

[Specop 007]

I'm not surprised to see you use the word humerous. But it was Sarah Palin who implicity blamed herself by quietly removing the now infamous webpage from her site. To borrow the WSJ's obnoxious logic below, Ms. Palin either acknowledges that her page was, at minimum, in poor taste, or she lacks the courage to stand behind her ideals when it becomes policially inconvenient. Which is it?



Ok, and I guess we can ask her if her opinion has changed if she recovers. Until then we might just have to legislate on behalf of the 300 million people in the united states who would like to go to a shopping mall without being shot in the head.



Well, if we can quote radical right wing sources, a more moderate voice in refutation should be fine:



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html

Now for my own clarification here. When you say "In poor taste" is that the same poor taste as burning a doll that looks like Bush, you know, like what the Leftys were doing a few years back or is it more along the lines of "Not my President!"? Or is it a different "poor taste" altogether? Its so easy to get these things confused.....

 

[CrackRabbit]

When you can't address the facts, shoot the messenger.

And now we see the violence inherent in the system! :awe:

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You keep making accusations that have no basis in fact. Do you have any proof that Fox ever misrepresented Giffords in the past?

Every time they misrepresented an issue as a government takeover, socialism, as having death panels, etc., they misrepresented everyone who supported that issue. They're whole business model seems to be finding ways to imply D's are socialist tyrants who want to kill you. It's inciteful hate speech. And unless there was a "*Giffords not included" disclaimer in any of those reports, she was lumped right on in with the rest.

 

[Blackjack200]

Now for my own clarification here. When you say "In poor taste" is that the same poor taste as burning a doll that looks like Bush, you know, like what the Leftys were doing a few years back or is it more along the lines of "Not my President!"? Or is it a different "poor taste" altogether? Its so easy to get these things confused.....

Is that something that Maddow or Olbermann did? If so, I would comdemn it. If not, I don't know what your point is.

 

[Blackjack200]

Knee jerk reaction much like everybody blaming all Muslims for 9/11

So if the appropriate response after 9-11 was to aggressively persue terrorists and those that harbor them, what is the appropritate response to this act of terrorism?

Surely the answer is not just say 'oh darn, that's too bad, I sure hope more nutters don't get their hands on Glocks.'

?

 

[Specop 007]

So if the appropriate response after 9-11 was to aggressively persue terrorists and those that harbor them, what is the appropritate response to this act of terrorism?

Surely the answer is not just say 'oh darn, that's too bad, I sure hope more nutters don't get their hands on Glocks.'

?

Aggressively manage mental health patients and make sure Law Enforcement actualyl follows up on reports of death threats.

 

[Jaskalas]

I oppose any law made in the context of this tragedy. Just as I oppose the patriot act. Lot of good that opposition does. You can't even vote for a party that will remove it.

 

[Blackjack200]

Aggressively manage mental health patients and make sure Law Enforcement actualyl follows up on reports of death threats.

By that logic our response to 9/11 should have gone no further than tighter airport security and improved intelligence.

And IIRC, Loughner was not a mental health patient.

 

[Jaskalas]

So if the appropriate response after 9-11 was to aggressively persue terrorists and those that harbor them, what is the appropritate response to this act of terrorism?

Surely the answer is not just say 'oh darn, that's too bad, I sure hope more nutters don't get their hands on Glocks.'?

We should examine his age and mental condition, any drugs he was taking, his history with the victims, the fact that police told him not to return to collage without a mental exam - yet he still possessed a gun.

 

[Gyhrg71]

removed bad info