The blame game

January 11th, 2011 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

An excellent op ed by Glenn Reynolds in the Wall Street Journal:

Shortly after November’s electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews’s TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday’s tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner’s killing spree might fill the bill. …

There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!” the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. “Where,” asked Mr. York, “was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?”

I find that comparison very apt. An army major starts slaughtering his own colleagues while crying out “Allah Akhbar”, and many media say one can’t jump to conclusions about his motivations, while in the Arizona shooting, they concoct rationale on the spot.

Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill. …

So as the usual talking heads begin their “have you no decency?” routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?

Blood libel – a nice turn of phrase.

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?

Also a strong piece from Jay Nordinger at National Review:

After the Kennedy assassination, John Tower and his family had to evacuate to a safe place. The early word was that right-wingers had killed the president. Tower was associated with Goldwater for President. There were death threats against his family. It transpired, of course, that a left-wing nutjob who had “defected,” briefly, to the Soviet Union was the killer. A liberal was quoted as saying, “Now our grief can be pure.”

When Reagan was shot, there were not many political recriminations, or any. Just a lot of Jodie Foster jokes.

A few months ago, an eco-extremist took hostages at the Discovery Channel building, threatening to kill them and blow up the building. He was shot by the police before he could kill anyone. I don’t recall any comments from the right-wing peanut gallery. …

If an Islamist blows up or guns down 50 people, shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he does it, you’re not supposed to say that the act has any broad implications at all. It is simply an individual act, end of story. But if a young psychotic in Arizona kills a lot of people, we’re supposed to examine the state of Sarah Palin’s soul.

Tags:

158 Responses to “The blame game”

  1. Grant Michael McKenna (1,156 comments) says:

    Personally I find http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/ by Professor Reynolds compulsory reading. I especially liked his analysis:

    Lefty: Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement encourage hatred and violence!
    Questioner: How do you know?
    Lefty: Because whenever I think about them, I’m filled with hate and a desire to do harm!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tvb (4,199 comments) says:

    Sarah Palin chooses to use very violent gun loaded imagery and comments in her campaigning. She has politicians faces in cross hairs now called surveyors sights. She says things like “don’t retreat – reload.” So when a politician gets shot in a politically motivated killing with a firearm – of course Palin gets targeted. She is playing a hard campaign using firearms as political props. So she will get it back when her imagery of violence gets acted upon for real. Let us see after this tragic shooting how she responds. So far explaining away a violent ad as “surveyors sights” has exposed her political weakness in using this campaign tool

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. m@tt (587 comments) says:

    What slanted reporting. Here is a more balanced view on the central topic.

    1. If an Islamist blows up or guns down 50 people, shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he does it you should blame both him and the people that incited him to that violence, if such people exist.
    2. When Jared Lee Loughner goes on a killing spree you should blame both him and the people that incited him to that violence if such people exist.

    You can’t have it one way or the other.

    [DPF: You miss a key point. With the Islamist, you know he has been incited to violence for a political cause. There is no doubt (and there was lots if proof about his contacts in Pakistan etc). With this latest shooting, there is to fate no proof anyone incited him to do anything - just that he was mentally deranged.

    Yet in the first case the media held back on whether he had been incited, while in this case they have not]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    Guns Don’t Kill People, Palin Does!

    http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2035522/v19836231

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (13,339 comments) says:

    A good article from Hayes: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sometimes-tragedy-just-tragedy_526935.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    # tvb (1,584) Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 10:21 am

    Sarah Palin chooses to use very violent gun loaded imagery and comments in her campaigning. She has politicians faces in cross hairs now called surveyors sights. She says things like “don’t retreat – reload.” So when a politician gets shot in a politically motivated killing with a firearm – of course Palin gets targeted. She is playing a hard campaign using firearms as political props. So she will get it back when her imagery of violence gets acted upon for real. Let us see after this tragic shooting how she responds. So far explaining away a violent ad as “surveyors sights” has exposed her political weakness in using this campaign tool

    And Barack Obama suggests bringing a gun to a knife fight.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

    And Ted and McCaw use military metphors. What should we do about them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    Paul Krugman pulled the same stunt, speculating, or rather stating, the motivation for the shooter within 48 hours of the event in the NY Times. The one and only reason he can get away with that is because his nonsense is compatible with the ‘received wisdom’. Had he speculated, with equal evidence, that the attack had a religious basis he would be rightly shot down in flames.

    I am sad to see this event results in calls for gun control. It should be obvious that gun control makes these tragic events more likely, not less, because only the law abiding are disarmed by it, giving crims the advantage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. m@tt (587 comments) says:

    Sonny. They should be called out for doing so and be reminded, by media commentators I guess, that that kind of violent talk can lead to this kind of tragedy. If we can agree that violent talk is unnecessary and inciteful then it shouldn’t matter whether they are left, right or whatever should it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Grant Michael McKenna (1,156 comments) says:

    Instapundit links to Michelle Malkin for a partial list of left-wing violent rhetoric: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Roflcopter (422 comments) says:

    Just gotta read stuff like Martyg at the Strandard about this event… what a total fuckwit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. JC (906 comments) says:

    When Bill Clinton used the Oklahoma City bombing to his political advantage in 1995 the Internet social media was in its infancy and he was able to portray that narrative very effectively with sympathetic media.

    Immediately after the Giffords shooting the left tried it again, but forgot that social media goes both ways without gatekeepers.

    The US conservatives have dug up hundreds of examples of hate speech and allusions to murder from the left. These include the Democrat Party using bulls eyes on selected States they wished to target and the Daily Kos also targeted Giffords with a bulls eye because she had “sold out”.

    I think with the truth about the killer coming out the Republicans are going to win this little shit fight going away.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Nigel (508 comments) says:

    Glenn Reynolds is a media slut, he bags MSM whilst trying to compete with them, amusing but sad.

    I think there is a middle ground, the right say they can do whatever they like because it’s only words/guns & words/guns have no impact, it’s people who use them, well tell that to China/Goebbels/Non Nga Puhi tribes, it’s a simplistic arguement from the sorts who thought Iraq/Afghanistan would be simple wars.

    The left in the meantime are bagged for suggesting that the rise in rhetoric might help foster this environment, there’s a component of that, but there are agendas, whether gun control or political momentum which are taking advantage of a tragedy & they are complicit in the rhetoric ( witness Obama’s comments ).

    I’m saying both sides are guilty as charged, but in the end one person did a horrific thing & that person is primarily responsible, but it’s a bit like egging on a fight & saying not my fault when someone is seriously injured, the Left & Right in the US are responsible for the rhetoric & whilst a minor influence, it’s still an influence.

    Last thought, why does the US have such a history of shooting politicians, maybe it’s the Civil War, I’m not sure, certainly I don’t think it’s the proliferation of guns per se, it’s deeper than that, but for the republic’s long term stability, I sure hope they get it sorted soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. thomasbeagle (78 comments) says:

    I think an important point is that Palin and others had been calling for violence against the main target of the shooting.

    Put it another way – if a deranged person killed Salman Rushdie after the fatwa issued against him, would you have partly blamed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini for issuing the fatwa calling for him to be killed?

    [DPF: Thomas a fatwa is a direct command to kill someone - no ifs, no buts. If an Islamist killed Rushdie, then Khomeini would be to blame. If it was someone not at all religious, who was a certifiable lunatic, then Khomeini probably just got lucky.

    And I'm not even going to try and engage with you on comparing a fatwa with crosshairs on a political website - unless you think the Democratic Leadership Council is also sanctioning violence.

    Personally I don't like cross-hairs or bulls-eyes as a symbol of targeting someone. And I am no Palin defender. I would not vote for her if she was the GOP candidate for President.

    But I think the media linkage to Palin has been unfair in this case. There is enough legitimate stuff to criticise her over]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Bob R (1,336 comments) says:

    ***American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!” the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. “Where,” asked Mr. York, “was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?”***

    Exactly right. Also, when Pim Fortuyn, the anti Muslim immigration Dutch politician, was assassinated I don’t recall the media blaming leftists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ryan Sproull (7,027 comments) says:

    Put it another way – if a deranged person killed Salman Rushdie after the fatwa issued against him, would you have partly blamed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini for issuing the fatwa calling for him to be killed?

    Correlation does not equal causation, though. Even if that happened, you’d be leaping to conclusions in the absence of any evidence that the deranged person was inspired by the fatwa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. berend (1,631 comments) says:

    I think the lefties knew who would do such a thing, so they tried to grab the narrative. And indeed, it was one of their own, 9/11 was an inside job, probably believed in global warming, etc. etc. But for all interested, this naked grab of the story was too plain to see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. berend (1,631 comments) says:

    I think the lefties knew who would do such a thing, so they tried to grab the narrative. And indeed, it was one of their own, 9/11 was an inside job, probably believed in global warming, etc. etc. But for all interested, this naked grab of the story was too plain to see.

    thomasbeagle:I think an important point is that Palin and others had been calling for violence against the main target of the shooting.

    Where is your link thomasbeagle? Where have Palin and others called for violence against the main target of the shooting? You saw it on TV and read it in the NY Times I suppose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Bob R (1,336 comments) says:

    ***I think an important point is that Palin and others had been calling for violence against the main target of the shooting.

    Put it another way – if a deranged person killed Salman Rushdie after the fatwa issued against him, would you have partly blamed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini for issuing the fatwa calling for him to be killed?***

    A bit of a stretch to suggest that anyone had called for _actual_ violence against the politician. The fatwa on the other hand was quite explicit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. LabourDoesntWork (282 comments) says:

    Given the loony left nature of the shooter (emphasis on loony) it’s difficult to draw lines betwen him and others, even dirtbags on the far left, if that were applicable. He tried to assassinate a Democrat, remember. Tying him to Palin says more about the people who are attempting to do that than it does Palin. To rational people, anyway. This is the real story: the poison and hate in the political discourse today, where people attempt to exploit a tragedy for whatever political end. Naturally they’re on the left, mainly. It’s useful to the right in exposing the left for the haters and the practitioners of double standards that they are. The lack of Couric’s, et al, complete inability at self-examination, that would clue them into what others can plainly see, is a symptom of their total political view of everything – typical of the left – which is more about creating and exploiting perceptions than focusing on reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. onelaw4all (23 comments) says:

    “I think an important point is that Palin and others had been calling for violence against the main target of the shooting.”

    Citation please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. RightNow (6,647 comments) says:

    On the spectrum of inciting violence, I’d put the 10:10 ‘no pressure’ video right near the top.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    Also a very good article on Big Journalism –

    There is no evidence Jared Loughner even watched Fox News or leaned right. Inconveniently, a former friend and bandmate described Loughern as “left-wing political radical” and “quite liberal,” and Loughner claimed The Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books on his YouTube page where he also released video burning the American flag.But when it comes to exploiting human tragedy to “pick a target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it” (in Saul Alinsky’s words), no facts will obstruct a perfectly salvageable mainstream media narrative.

    Writing in The New York Times, Paul Krugman mouthwateringly jumped at the bit to officialize the tragedy as a cue for “the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers,” giving dire caution over “the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead,” and blaming a “climate of hate.” Jane Fonda blamed the tragedy on “violence-provoking rhetoric of the Tea Party” – a movement whose standards of civility apparently don’t live up to those of the Viet Cong.

    This “climate of hate” and “violence-provoking rhetoric” certainly wouldn’t include the congressional maps put out by the Democrat Leadership Committee using actual shooting targets (as opposed to the surveyor crosshairs used by SarahPAC), nor Barack Obama’s 2008 “if they bring a knife to a fight we bring a gun” remarks, nor the environmentalist 10:10 “No Pressure” ad featuring children being blown up for questioning green control tactics, nor the West Hollywood display of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose, nor the feature film “Death of a President” fantasizing the assassination of George W. Bush, nor Wanda Sykes giving President Obama a good tickle by wishing kidney failure upon Rush Limbaugh, nor Bill Maher regretting that the terrorist assassination plot against Dick Cheney didn’t pan out, nor even the gunshots fired into Republican Congressman Eric Cantor’s office during this past spring.

    Naturally, only conservatives are to blame for a violent act by an apparent liberal. And instead of blaming Al Gore and the environmental movement for James J. Lee, the man who held three hostages at the Discovery Channel building with explosives attached to him this past September and claimed An Inconvenient Truth as his inspiration, we blamed one person: James J. Lee. For the same reason, here is a list of people I blame for the Tucson shooting (forgive the brevity):

    1) Jared Lee Loughner
    2) See 1)

    The actual story has links throughout to take you to the relevant stories.

    This STORY compares surveyor marks and crosshair symbols. Guess which one Palin uses on her map, and which symbol the Democrat-based group used on their map? I think she is owed a big apology.

    I notice that One News had the Palin angle in the feed they decided to air as well. Typical leftie media

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. eszett (2,332 comments) says:

    Gotta love the narrative. A democrat gets shot and the victims are the republicans. Nice. Talk about going on the offensive.

    It is nonsense that Sarah Palin can or should be held somehow responsible for the shooting. There is no evidence to support this and after all the guy was clearly a looney and shot not just Giffords, but killed 6 innocent bystanders including a 9 year old girl.

    However it is equally naive to ignore the connection between Giffords shooting and Sarah Palin (note that a connection is not the same as causality)

    Andrew Sullivan sums it up pretty nicely:

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/the-market-for-palin.html

    A political assassination cannot be dismissed as non-political. And even if one argues, as I would, that Palin bears no direct responsibility at all for this act of violence and that the idea of her as an “accomplice” of some sort is offensive, it remains true that a) Palin specifically targeted this political opponent for “re-loading” within literal gun-sights, b) this was noticed at the time by the future victim as a dangerously violent provocation, c) Palin upped the ante when confronted with this criticism and refused to back down, and is even now apoplectic that this should be in any way about her. If your response to these set of facts is to deny that there is anything awry here, you are part of the problem, it seems to me.

    There is no way to understand the politics of this without Palin. She has long been the leader of the movement that drapes itself in military garb, that marinates in violent rhetoric, that worships gun culture, that has particular ferocity in the state of Arizona, and that never ever apologizes for anything.

    One can hope that the political discourse and discussion in the US may change for the better, on both sides. But I am not holding my breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    How inspiring that media pundits are so quick to reach for “everyone’s to blame” when no conservative events have been terrorised by gunmen.

    Sarah Palin rummages online frantically erasing her rabble-rousing Tweets like a Stalinist trimming non-persons out of photos. - Roger Ebert

    Teaparty asses have been asking for this to happen, and how they’re pissed off that we’re calling them out on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Seems the derananged murderer IS a Republican after all.

    http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/zappaisfrank/jllrsc.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. GPT1 (2,087 comments) says:

    I would have thought Sarah Palin provides, if you will excuse the term, enough ammunition for criticism without having to resort to straw hunting between a tragedy and her campaigns. It is a disgraceful example of using a tragedy for political purposes but like the left everywhere they seem to believe the ends justify the means. It must be nice living in a world where believing you stand for light and purity excuses all sins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    I see that Nicola Lamb from the NZ Herald has jumped on board as well, frothing at the mouth about the Right, the Tea Party, and their “politics of fear”.

    Pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. tvb (4,199 comments) says:

    Palin uses guns and violence to make her political point so she will get it back when that violence gets acted out for real. This is made especially so when she had an image of the shot politician in her cross hairs ad for political destruction. Well it seems the politician is going to live. Is Palin going to “reload”?? All this may seem harsh but Palin has asked for this. So far the surveyors sights to explain away the cross hairs is fairly feeble. I suppose the song will now be renamed “I surveyed the sheriff”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    # m@tt (214) Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Sonny. They should be called out for doing so and be reminded, by media commentators I guess, that that kind of violent talk can lead to this kind of tragedy. If we can agree that violent talk is unnecessary and inciteful then it shouldn’t matter whether they are left, right or whatever should it?

    I’m going to mis the Jack Ryan films, and Shooter was good.

    But worst of all is going to be no more Judas Priest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    Just for those with short memories:

    Obama “bring a gun to a knife fight”

    http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=d5b4c187-db09-4fbb-8d12-bb6f42639478

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    1. If an Islamist blows up or guns down 50 people, shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he does it you should blame both him and the people that incited him to that violence, if such people exist.

    Correct, all involved need to be held to account – mind you I’ve got the feeling that when you refer to “the people that incited him to violence” you are intending to link the US military as the culprit, and not some fundamentalist Imam.

    2. When Jared Lee Loughner goes on a killing spree you should blame both him and the people that incited him to that violence if such people exist.

    Then where is your ire for Obama? Daily Ko’s? etc, they have both used violent rhetoric as well? And a great number of sources are suggesting Loughner is heavily Left Wing – Communist Manifesto, Mien Kampf, Anarchist leanings, anti religion – doesnt sound like your atypical conservative tea party supporter. And yes I’ve seen MNIJ’s ‘image’ and I note no sources have been provided or any investigation either.

    So where is your outrage at Obama and Daily Ko’s? Probably hihden behind your biased one eyed viewpoint.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (6,647 comments) says:

    MyNameIsJared – you’ve posted a link to the ‘fixed-up’ image. The first one had Tucson spelled incorrectly:
    http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/jllvi.jpg

    “Loughner registered to vote for the first time in 2006, said Chris Roads, Pima County’s registrar of voters. He registered as an independent and last voted in the 2008 general election” http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_78272a23-fe75-5bee-ba38-f8171cda3fb7.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Bob R (1,336 comments) says:

    ***Teaparty asses have been asking for this to happen, and how they’re pissed off that we’re calling them out on it.***

    Not really, I can’t recall anyone making a movie imagining a Democratic politician being assasinated. However, one was made imagining the assasination of George W Bush. It even won a prize:

    “Winner of the International Critics’ Prize at the Toronto Film Festival,” “DEATH OF A PRESIDENT” is conceived as a fictional TV documentary broadcast in 2008, reflecting on another monstrously despicable and cataclysmic event: the assassination of President George W. Bush on October 19th, 2007. The “documentary” combines archival footage and carefully composed interviews, presented in a respectful and dignified manner. Exciting and questioning, it refashions the event into a riveting story.”

    http://www.deathofapresident.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    tvb, as I pointed out, the Dems had a map with bullseyes on it as well, but do they get called out on it? After all, it was a Dem who shot her – a very liberal one, by all accounts. Was he influenced by FOX, Palin, and the Tea Party? No.

    It’s a Leftist smear tactic straight out of Alinsky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Ed Snack (1,734 comments) says:

    I see the blood libel is alive and well and living very well in NZ; @matt, you’re a good example, along with eszett, tvb, and mynameisjack. Despicable, hate filled people, and good useful idiots.

    You want to look at the array of hate filled violent images used by the left in the 2008 election campaign to attack Sarah Palin, long before she was associated with the “Tea Party” or anything quite like it. Hangings, shootings, rape, and where were you then in criticizing the explicitly violent imagery ? Or maybe it’s just that “that bitch” deserves it, so it’s OK ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    Gotta love the narrative. A democrat gets shot and the victims are the republicans. Nice. Talk about going on the offensive.

    Well one of the actual dead victims was a Republican!

    Shorter eszett: we on the left are going to smear you for political purposes. Just shut up and accept it.

    Gotta love the narrative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    why does the US have such a history of shooting politicians

    I would hardly confine it to the US. Sweden has had more political assassinations in the last thirty years than the United States!

    The dude was a 9/11 Truther. To me that’s GAME OVER. Truthers aren’t known for their sympathy to less government and lower taxes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    I thought this comment from noted, violent, right-wing extremist George Will was right on the money also, The charlatans’ response to the Tucson tragedy, where he first discusses the assassinations of Presidents Garfield and McKinley and then moves to the modern day:

    Now we have explainers. They came into vogue with the murder of President Kennedy. They explained why the “real” culprit was not a self-described Marxist who had moved to Moscow, then returned to support Castro. No, the culprit was a “climate of hate” in conservative Dallas, the “paranoid style” of American (conservative) politics, or some other national sickness resulting from insufficient liberalism.

    Last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow explained that “the optics must be irritating” to conservatives: Barack Obama is black, Nancy Pelosi is female, Rep. Barney Frank is gay, Rep. Anthony Weiner (an unimportant Democrat, listed to serve Blow’s purposes) is Jewish. “It’s enough,” Blow said, “to make a good old boy go crazy.” The Times, which after the Tucson shooting said that “many on the right” are guilty of “demonizing” people and of exploiting “arguments of division,” apparently was comfortable with Blow’s insinuation that conservatives are misogynistic, homophobic, racist anti-Semites.

    On Sunday, the Times explained Tucson: “It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But . . .”

    The “directly” is priceless.

    Worth remembering the next time someone brings up the measured, cautious and concerned approach that the NYT brings to these discussions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    From all the evidence available to date, it now appears that Gifford was shot in the head by Loughner because she was not far enough to the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    One can hope that the political discourse and discussion in the US may change for the better, on both sides. But I am not holding my breath.

    That’s good because what you wrote is breathtaking. That statement comes right after you give a quote from ….. Andrew Sullivan ….., purveyor of the one of the battiest conspiracy theories in American political history, Trig Thrutherism.

    Has there ever been a gay man so obsessed with the vagina of one woman?

    How did any of his endless stream of pieces on that subject change US political discourse for the better. In what political bubble can you live to utter such a demand right after quoting Andrew Sullivan?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RRM (9,435 comments) says:

    Like, Whatever.

    Conservative freak sites spew forth a language of hatred for “the gummint” and one’s political opponents, and gun worship that would be funny if it were not for actual shootings that occur, out in the real world, far from the experience of the political freak bloggers.

    [Take a look at our very own Baiter's http://truebluenz.wordpress.com/ which tries oh so hard to emulate them. Guns and threats of killing on the front page and everything.]

    Of course these people didn’t MAKE Loughner do what he did. But he cannot fail to have seen and been inspired by their constantly-broadcast rhetoric of
    HATE YOUR ENEMIES!
    HATE THE GUMMINT!
    HATE THEM!
    LIBERALS, FAGS, GREENIES, NIGGERS, MUSLIMS, MUSLIM-LOVERS AND LEFTISTS IN GENERAL ARE CONSPIRING TO KEEP YOU DOWN!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Interesting, Palin has done no harm so her repeating don’t retreat just reload after this slaughter would be good form by her according to right wingers ?

    If she is not terrified after this slaughter she should be, how many of those relatives will hold her responsible ?
    I notice the politician’s father blames her and the tea party for his daughter getting shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. thedavincimode (6,530 comments) says:

    tvb

    “So far explaining away a violent ad as “surveyors sights” has exposed her political weakness in using this campaign tool”.

    … not to mention her political weakness as a completely implausible liar.

    Does anyone know what “reloading” surveyors sights would entail?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    A commenter, Daddytype on Big Journalism also makes the point about Obama’s telling Lantinos to “punish your enemies” after which 4 Americans are shot in separate attacks a week later. No one called out Obama on that though. I guess they weren’t important enough (congressmen).

    I’m going to apply some left wing logic here with scary results
    You can apparently draw a straight line from heated political speech to violence
    Lets look at the facts, shall we?

    October 25th, 2010. Obama calls for Latinos to “punish our enemies”
    NOVEMBER 1ST 2010 (LESS THAN A WEEK LATER) Four Americans are shot in separate attacks in Ciudad Juarez.

    Well, mr. obama. Mission accomplished!
    Mexicans came out at your request and ‘punished’ your ‘enemies’
    I hope you’re happy sir
    If you have a shred of decency, you should remove yourself from politics immediately before more innocent people pay for your hateful rhetoric with their lives

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    However it is equally naive to ignore the connection between Giffords shooting and Sarah Palin (note that a connection is not the same as causality)

    Jeez eszett, you’re a goldmine today. A connection is not the same as causality – in the world of science and engineering. In the world of political discourse and propaganda it absolutely is the same – and you know it.

    a href=”http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/10/giffords-ghouls-and-gimmicks/”>Don’t think of an elephant:

    Of course, intellectual dishonesty is very much about having and eating one’s cake. When someone tells you not to think of an elephant, it is impossible to not think of one. When the establishment media tells everyone that there is no evidence to blame an elephant, while reciting the smears from the ghouls, and raising questions about “the discourse,” they know they are forcing people to think about the elephant.

    But more specifically in relation to the “great center” of media discourse, away from those nutty fringes:

    Given the total lack of evidence for the smear, the saner provinces of the media were not about to jump aboard the ghouls’ bandwagon, especially while the evidence mounted that Loughner was a disturbed man with an ideology — to the extent one could be discerned — far outside any definition of the mainstream right, with a long-standing grudge against Giffords.

    Something more subtle would have to do. People on Twitter could watch the groupthink develop in real-time. When Politico’s Glenn Thrush wrote, “Whoever the shooter–this is a watershed moment that will immediately redefine current debate and view of pols embracing of extreme rhetoric,” it was quickly echoed by the paper’s Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman, the Hotline’s Josh Kraushaar and dozens more.

    This was the narrative pushed by the New York Times within hours, leaving the evidence that Loughner was a nutter with a liberal past to a separate piece. The WaPo echoed the narrative by the end of the day. By Sunday, the establishment media had its talking point firmly in hand, summarized in The New Yorker headline “It Doesn’t Matter Why He Did It.”

    Had Loughner turned out to be a Tea Party activist in good standing, who he was and why he did it would be the sole topic of discussion. But he wasn’t, so by Saturday evening, I was tweeting [in reference to Sullivan's own attempted backfilling] about the center-left’s emerging fallback position of “Fake, But Accurate.”

    Perhaps Fake, But Accurate should instead read Like, Whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. francis (712 comments) says:

    A walk down memory lane: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. berend (1,631 comments) says:

    tvb: Palin uses guns and violence to make her political point

    Where is the violence bit tvb? Where has she called for violence?

    On the use of guns to make a political point, no leftie in modern times has ever done that right?

    My last suggestion would be to read less Paul Krugman and watch less TV. Helps to retain the link with reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    John Lennon murdered Sharon Tate. Jodie Foster shot Ronald Reagan. Oliver Stone and Marilyn Manson caused Columbine. A dog ordered the Son of Sam killings. And Fox News, the Tea Party and the American right compelled Jared Loughner to shoot Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others in Tucson

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. jaba (2,089 comments) says:

    when this gutless shithead was named, his former school mates were interviewed and expressed that they thought he had lost the plot. Media are asking why this wasn’t passed onto authorities .. WTF were they going to do .. he hadn’t, as far as I know, broken any laws until he shot a lot of people??
    The Labour party and those crazy fks at the Substandard, constantly play the man and not the ball .. maybe I should pass this onto the cops as some of the things they say are fairly pointed and nasty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    MNIJ – The page you have of Loughner as a Republican is fraudulent. Power Line reports that county records show him as registered as an Independent. Who, by the way, did not vote last November. That’s how much he cared about politics.

    Sonny Blount – Paul McCartney wrote and sang Helter Skelter… or does that make your mention of John Lennon even more apt? :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    Sonny Blount – Paul McCartney wrote and sang Helter Skelter… or does that make your mention of John Lennon even more apt? :-D

    I think Lennon killed himself didn’t he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. eszett (2,332 comments) says:

    wow, tom, 3 responses to my post. I must have rattled some chains.

    Sorry if just stating by stating facts you immediately think I am accusing Sarah Palin. That is slightly paranoid on your side. It is undeniable that she produced a map with crosshairs and that Giffords did bring this issue up. Would you prefer that we would just all ignore it and not even mention it? Is that your preferred view on things?

    Of course we could purge anything slightly political from this story and just say “gunman kills 6 and wounds 19″. Do you think that accurately describes what happened?

    All the right wingers are doing is running around like headless chicken and accusing the left of a “smear campaign” and of goulishly exploiting the shooting. They are not even denying a violent, divisive and corrosive rhetoric on their side, but instead are pointing to the left and saying “you do it too”.

    Very much the typical knee-jerk response, from both sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Fucken hell eszett, can you even open your other eye?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. LabourDoesntWork (282 comments) says:

    How America’s elite hijacked a massacre to take revenge on Sarah Palin

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    wow, tom, 3 responses to my post. I must have rattled some chains.

    Oooh. I knew this spin was on the way. Let’s turn it around and play it out in a different scenario:

    Tom: Gee eszett, I see that three pedophiles caught lately have been members of your “Dungeons and Dragons for boys” club

    eszett:: What’s the problem with that? Adult men and boys both enjoy playing that game!

    Tom: I’m merely pointing out that there is a connection, not a causality, eszett.

    eszett: Then why even mention it if the club is not the cause?

    Tom: There’s no need to get all defensive eszett. Your reacting as though you’ve got something to hide…

    It’s effective.
    It’s cheap.
    It’s easy.

    It’s eszett.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. eszett (2,332 comments) says:

    Nice one, tom. You must be mighty proud of yourself to come up with that one. Did it take you all afternoon to think of it?

    Again, I pose the question to you. How would you have handled it? It’s all very good to immediately pounce on someone that just mentions Sarah Palin, but please, enlighten us, how would you have approached the whole issue? You wouldn’t have mentioned it at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Palin uses guns and violence to make her political point so she will get it back when that violence gets acted out for real. This is made especially so when she had an image of the shot politician in her cross hairs ad for political destruction. Well it seems the politician is going to live. Is Palin going to “reload”?? All this may seem harsh but Palin has asked for this. So far the surveyors sights to explain away the cross hairs is fairly feeble. I suppose the song will now be renamed “I surveyed the sheriff”.

    tvb you shameless liar, you know there is no image of Gifford in any cross hairs or even surveyer points. Citation please? Thought not. Unless you’re getting confused with this Dem’s campaign ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA

    Here is what Palin actually said in this campaign. Paragraph two makes clear what she hopes to do to these 20 Dems – unemployment. The only fight is the “fight to elect people”. You know, Democracy? So stop lying and putting your fingers in your ears going “lalalalalalala I can’t hear you” when anyone tries to point you in the direction of reality.


    With the president signing this unwanted and “transformative” government takeover of our health care system today with promises impossible to keep, let’s not get discouraged. Don’t get demoralized. Get organized!

    We’re going to reclaim the power of the people from those who disregarded the will of the people. We’re going to fire them and send them back to the private sector, which has been shrinking thanks to their destructive government-growing policies. Maybe when they join the millions of unemployed, they’ll understand why Americans wanted them to focus on job creation and an invigorated private sector. Come November, we’re going to print pink slips for members of Congress as fast as they’ve been printing money

    We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election. Three of these House members are retiring – from Arkansas’s 2nd district, Indiana’s 8th district, and Tennessee’s 6th district – but we’ll be working to make sure that those who replace them are Commonsense Conservatives. The others are running for re-election, and we’re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote. They are: Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1), Harry E. Mitchell (AZ-5), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8), John Salazar (CO-3), Betsy Markey (CO-4). Allen Boyd (FL-2), Suzanne M. Kosmas (FL-24), Baron P. Hill (IN-9), Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL), Charlie Wilson (OH-6), John Boccieri (OH-16), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), Christopher Carney (PA-10), John M. Spratt, Jr. (SC-5), Tom Perriello (VA-5), Alan B. Mollohan (WV-1), and Nick J. Rahall II (WV-3)

    We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight

    Stand tall, America. Real change is coming

    – Sarah Palin

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    Did it take you all afternoon to think of it?

    Actually I’d only just sat down to watch a movie with my kids when I decided to check up on this thread, having spent this beautiful, sunny afternoon outside continuing to build a pantry unit out of native wood for our kitchen. Good, honest, creative toil away from the mire of people who have to politicise everything. You should try it sometime.

    Again, I pose the question to you.

    Tempted as I am to tell you to take your question and shove it – given that you have been just as eager (gagging, desperate?) as your US counterparts to politicise this tragedy – I’ll answer.

    Assuming it’s my first report – where the background of the killer and his motivations are unknown – I would have simply reported the known facts: where, when, who, how – exactly as you suggested “gunman kills 6 and wounds 19″.

    If I felt I had to go further (for “colour” purposes) I would have mentioned the Sarah Palin angle ONLY if I had also mentioned the Daily Kos “targeting” of Gifford, and the DLCC target map. I might have also mentioned the numerous attacks on right-wingers and right-wing politicians. Had I felt that need to mention some of the “extremist” rhetoric of the right I would have made a point of listing all the divisive shit that Obama has spewed out in the last 2-3 years, let alone Moveon.org and co.

    In short, I would have provided a balanced report at all stages. Given that world is long gone the best I can do is rely on right-wing media sources, reporters and commentators to balance the crap from the NYT, CNN, et al.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    People died, Democrats lied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. eszett (2,332 comments) says:

    Yeah, right, tom.

    And if a democrat would have had a widely publicised map of 20 politicians with crosshairs on their locations and then one of them got shot, you would have not bothered to bring it up it.

    Even more, if the media wouldn’t have mentioned it, you would never have blamed the media for having a “left-wing” bias.

    That’s more than hard to believe.

    Maybe you should stick to building pantries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. reid (15,918 comments) says:

    Interesting how this entire thread [and just about every other thread here] has revolved round the very thing which is said to have caused it in the first place: left-right vitriol.

    IF the US politicians were real leaders the moderates on both sides would be joining together to condemn the extremists in their own parties. This isn’t about left or right, it’s about extremist rhetoric: i.e. highly partisan designed to win at all costs regardless of potential consequence. Not new, but temperature’s been rising for a long time. Each campaign the attack ads become more prevalent and vitriolic.

    Is this really the example the leaders of the greatest nation on earth [as they see themselves] wish to set?

    These days political debate the world over reminds me a lot of McCarthyism which ended as we all know, in McCarthy’s eventual disgrace and humiliation.

    I think one of the issues is, it’s been quite some time, since any country anywhere has had a leader who actually gives more of a shit about their country than they do about themselves, and doesn’t that say a whole hell of a lot about the world we’ve become.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    That’s rich coming from someone who only a day ago was flat out quoting Sherrif Dupnik and Keith Olbermann. I doubt you have one logical brain cell in your skull Reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. reid (15,918 comments) says:

    Yes RB and in your one-dimensional mind along which everything runs along a left-right spectrum, you failed, as usual, to see what I was saying yesterday is the same thing I just said now. Why don’t you re-read everything I said yesterday, a million times. And then write it out, a million times. For someone as blinded by the one-dimensional spectrum as you are, I doubt that would be enough for you even to start to see the light, but it would be a start.

    Otherwise, fuck off to TrueBlue and bleat about it over there, for I’m not interested in responding to your meanderings here, you’re just a waste of space and Leo Amery’s words to Chamberlain are rather aposite to you, here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Loughner must be sweating when he reads his defence lawyer’s track record..

    Defended:
    Ted Kaczynski – Life in prison without the possibility of parole
    Zacarias Moussaoui – Life without parole
    Susan Smith – minimum of thirty years
    Timothy McVeigh – executed.

    Keep it up…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    doesn’t that say a whole hell of a lot about the world we’ve become.

    Yep. You see it here, you see it on the roads, you see it in parliament, you see it on the streets. Selfishness, maliciousness and win at all costs seems to predominate.

    I suspect Obama will be too cautious on this to lead the US out of their vitriolic mess – I think the leadership will have to come from both sides in Congress, if it is to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “This isn’t about left or right, it’s about extremist rhetoric:”

    Which you were happy to quote as evidence that Sarah Palin was behind it all. You were right there with every other hate monger trying to pin it on Palin, and now today you try and pass yourself of as some moderate peace maker. What a cheap fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    I told you yesterday Pete, just go away. Stop stealing people’s income and spending it on unaffordable loony tune schemes. Stop telling us how to think and how to speak. It is smug control freaks like you that have made people angry, and we have every right to that anger. Just leave us alone. Just go away and take your stinking cultural Marxism with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    Stop telling us how to think and how to speak.

    Hillarious. Have you forgotten where you are RB – this isn’t your smug control freak blog :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. reid (15,918 comments) says:

    “This isn’t about left or right, it’s about extremist rhetoric:”

    Yeh so what about that was incompatible with what I said above RB, or are you fucking stupid as well as fanatical. Fuck off you waste of space.

    Just leave us alone. Just go away and take your stinking cultural Marxism one-dimensional spectrum with you.

    P.S. That’s the last time I exchange words with you on this thread RB, it becomes fearfully boring for others, you see, when all one does is respond to the meanderings of such a fucking nutter as you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Hey delirium: at what point does political rhetoric become “violent?” Am I not allowed to use military terminology in the case of politics? Maybe just use big arrows (with no sharp points!) to identify electorates which should be targeted given attention. Are you going to be the arbiter of “civility?” Give me your email address so I can forward my comments to you for approval.

    Also, Jackoff, Ezzie Babe and RRM in idiot shocker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dad4justice (7,739 comments) says:

    “Fuck off you waste of space.”

    If I said that I would be doing 8 months in the stinking demerit sin bin. We all get treated fairly in the old blame game of crap.Yeah right!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Fuck off you waste of space.”

    Gosh you must be a left whiner Reid. I’d be demerited for using language like that. In fact, I’d say that’s pretty close to the kind of rhetoric you say is unacceptable.

    Pete- don’t paste any smilies to me. You’re odious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. reid (15,918 comments) says:

    If I said that I would be doing 8 months in the stinking demerit sin bin.

    Possible d4j it was your poor punctuation that landed you that penalty. Think about it. :)

    The Chicago Manual of Style is very good in that area, if you want to avoid such in future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    But you’re funny RB. You must do it deliberately, you can’t be that oblivious to your hypocrisy.

    Do you want me to post something on your blog so you can do something with your dentures? You don’t have any teeth here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. dad4justice (7,739 comments) says:

    Violent rhetoric is alright for all bloggers except redbaiter and myself. Oh well I blame the socialist scum that have infested the West.

    “Possible d4j it was your poor punctuation that landed you that penalty”

    Stop talking utter rubbish reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. andrei (2,499 comments) says:

    The public discourse on this post has become somewhat vitriolic – now where have I heard that phrase recently?

    Still it’s only a blog thread = its not like public policy that will shape the future for better or worse is at stake or anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    Politico’s Jonathan Martin wrote that Palin may soon have to decide “whether she wants to be Ronald Reagan or Rush Limbaugh” as she contemplates her future.

    GOP strategist John Weaver said Palin is being held to a different standard precisely because she may have presidential aspirations.

    “You can’t put the actions of this insane person on her doorstep or anyone’s doorstep,” he said in Palin’s defense. But, he added, “having said that, there’s a difference between how people judge the conduct of a blogger and a political leader or someone who may want to run for president of the United States.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Stop talking utter rubbish reid.”

    He can’t help himself. He’s cross wired somewhere between the left and right frontal lobes. Calls himself a right winger but has been busy here for days pushing the meme that the shooting was caused by heated right wing rhetoric (a la Sherrif Dupnik) when it wasn’t at all. There was no connection. The rhetoric angle is completely false. The guy shot those people because he was a nutter. The left (and Reid’s) meme is completely false.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Civility Diktat No 872: No one is ever allowed to talk about “defeating” a political opponent ever again just in case some nutter unconnected with events clocks him (or her or, indeed, it) in the face.

    “having said that, there’s a difference between how people judge the conduct of a blogger and a political leader or someone who may want to run for president of the United States.”

    So does that apply to Obama? If some unhinged nutcase shoots a Republican politician, is it his fault because he once told an audience they should unite to “crush their enemies?” Oh tell me Arbiter of Civility, I am so confused. Lead me to the light.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    The guy shot those people because he was a nutter.

    I remember Reid saying pretty much exactly that near the beginning of the discussions on it here. So you two agree on something. Progress!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    What you remember and reality Pete are likely to be sixteen different things.

    Reid said this-

    “This isn’t about left or right, it’s about extremist rhetoric:”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. dad4justice (7,739 comments) says:

    Hey Pete Georgie is the resident Dr Phil on kiwiblog. Have you got some knitting to do Dr PG? Don’t answer just go away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. reid (15,918 comments) says:

    GOP strategist John Weaver said Palin is being held to a different standard precisely because she may have presidential aspirations.

    An excellent point Pete, and so she should be and yes Hurf, it also applies to Obama, or anyone else. If she ever becomes POTUS, the US is truly the Roman Empire in its last days.

    BTW, anyone have that code that hides a defined commenter’s posts? I have a dream…that will shorten my average GD thread considerably.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Just look it up loser. Why are all commies so dependent on others? Do something for yourself. Its called RIP and its an add on for Firefox. If you need any help in setting it up let me know. Now fuck off and set it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Come on, Pete. I look forward to reading the new rule book on civility (which will undoubtedly be different to the rule book some other guy will read).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. big bruv (13,227 comments) says:

    “This isn’t about left or right, it’s about extremist rhetoric:”

    Which sums up the Tea Party rather well, gun freaks and religious fanatics who want to impose their morals on the rest of society.

    No wonder Russell Fletcher likes them so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    And if a democrat would have had a widely publicised map of 20 politicians with crosshairs on their locations and then one of them got shot, you would have not bothered to bring it up it.

    The Democrats did have a several maps with targets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    Smurf, you should ask Redbarker, he’s the one trying to dictate who should say what on here.

    There is no rule book on civility, it’s common sense to anyone who knows anything about it. Why do you ask?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Scott Hamilton (279 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, I’m a bit confused about your position. I followed the link to your site, and found this statement, which you made last week:

    ‘There has been a bit of talk around about a civil war. After witnessing the widespread treason the Democrats revealed yesterday, I think its long overdue. These poisonous communist bastards are out to destroy the US from the inside. They have been tolerated too long. Its time to defend the Constitution, or abandon the Constitution. The choice is that simple, and there really is no choice. The Constitution must be defended, and therefore its time to recognize the Democrat Party and their supporters as traitors and fifth columnists and take whatever action is necessary to restore the correct degree of respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it protects. I’m not in the US these days, but anytime you guys over there feel like really starting something, just let me know. I’ll be there with bells on…I’m well aware the Republican Party has its fair share of anti-Constitution traitors too. It too is basically a vehicle for the imposition of cultural Marxism.’

    I realise that you didn’t advocate Loughner’s killing of innocent civilians, but is it unreasonable to think, on the basis of this statement in favour of starting a civil war in America, that you’d approve of the killing ‘cultural Marxist’ politicians, like Gifford and Obama? Politicians on the opposing side tend to be automatic targets in a civil war, after all. You certainly seem like a poor person to defend the American right from charges that it advocates violence…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Oh yes, Mr Moderate Centre-Left. Common sense on violent rhetoric. Like that gunman who took over Discovery Channel headquarters because he wanted their programming changed to reflect the WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE rhetoric of climate change from Al Gore et al. Course, I never heard any journalists back then calling on politicians like Bob Brown and Russel Norman and Helen Clark and Caroline Lucas to cut back on their doomsday theories. Yeah, common sense. That’s what you need.

    Here that, gentlemen? Common fucking sense. Pete George is a fucking fountain of wisdom. I wouldn’t know how to dress myself in the morning with his knowledge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    Here that, gentlemen? Common fucking sense. Pete George is a fucking fountain of wisdom.

    It should be “hear”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    … it’s about extremist rhetoric:”

    No, it is not about “extremist rhetoric”, it’s about the politicisation of a tragedy through underhanded efforts to claim some ephemeral link between the tragedy and “extremist rhetoric” (or the now more favourable “toxic environment”), so that said rhetoric can be “toned down”. Of course that will leave us with the question of how we define extremist – and who does the defining and the toning down!

    Tricky.

    Maybe, after 48 hours of anger, some sense is starting to filter through to the likes of the WaPo:

    But metaphors don’t kill people – guns kill people. Politicians should choose their words with care and keep debate civil, but it seems an unsupported leap to blame either the political climate or any particular individual or group for inciting the gunman. The suspect appears to be a disturbed young man with no coherent political philosophy.

    Which rather echoes the argument made in Slate:

    For as long as I’ve been alive, crosshairs and bull’s-eyes have been an accepted part of the graphical lexicon when it comes to political debates. Such “inflammatory” words as targeting, attacking, destroying, blasting, crushing, burying, knee-capping, and others have similarly guided political thought and action. Not once have the use of these images or words tempted me or anybody else I know to kill. I’ve listened to, read—and even written!—vicious attacks on government without reaching for my gun. I’ve even gotten angry, for goodness’ sake, without coming close to assassinating a politician or a judge.

    The great miracle of American politics is that although it can tend toward the cutthroat and thuggish, it is almost devoid of genuine violence outside of a few scuffles and busted lips now and again. With the exception of Saturday’s slaughter, I’d wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts of physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics.

    Any call to cool “inflammatory” speech is a call to police all speech, and I can’t think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power….

    Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    That’s hate speach right there.

    Oh shit, speech. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Scott Hamilton (279 comments) says:

    On a slightly different note – I wrote a review a couple of years ago of the latest edition of Don De Lillo’s great novel Libra, which tells the story of that very strange individual, Lee Harvey Oswald:
    http://books.scoop.co.nz/2009/01/10/what-delillo-tells-us-about-rob-gilchrist/
    De Lillo argues that Oswald cannot really be understood as a supporter of either the left or the right, but as someone who was prepared to use political ideas and actions as tools with which to achieve a strange sort of self-realisation. His desire to be significant – to be a ‘man of history’ – overrode any political commitments he had, and allowed him to work with both the far left and the far right. In my review of Libra I argued that the outed Kiwi spy Rob Gilchrist has some of the characteristics of De Lillo’s Oswald. Perhaps Jared Loughner’s actions can also be explained, to some extent at least, by De Lillo’s novel…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Oh big Fag is back and he’s obviously suffering from deep hurt. Have a hard day in the cab Graeme? No customers and no one to talk to other than Danny Watson. How sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    And if we do wish to inject some humour into this godforsaken situation one could do worse than look at Ann Althouse’s blog thread:

    There’s a war on metaphors.

    With Ann in the lead: And I am taking my stand as a dead-end resister!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. big bruv (13,227 comments) says:

    Red

    Life would be a lot easier for you if you just told answered a couple of questions.

    1. What have you achieved in your ten year ‘war’ against the left?
    2. What Ford do you drive that cost’s $70,000?

    Answer those questions and I will stop getting under your skin, I know how mush it irritates you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Sorry Scott Hamilton. That post is so confusing to me I can’t work out how to respond. I’ll try a guess. You’re saying that because I said I would be happy to help if those interested in restoring democracy started a civil war, I have no right to defend Sarah Palin or any other right wing US politician against charges of accessory to murder. Is that roughly it? If so, its a somewhat winding path of logic wouldn’t you say??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. dad4justice (7,739 comments) says:

    “I will stop getting under your skin”

    Gee big blouse you are a cowardly lump of vomit. You make any sane persons skin crawl. Hell I hope I never get a ride in your Fag Cab.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Bruv, you’re just another pain in the arse leftist wank job of the kind that stalk me obsessively all day every day. Don’t ascribe to yourself any special status. Tiresome, yes, but annoying? Hahha.. Your just another sad low intellect dickwad queer Bruv. Get back in line.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Scott Hamilton (279 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, you have every right to defend Sarah Palin, but I’m not sure if she’d want you in her corner. After all, she’s defending herself against the charge that she has supports using violence for political ends. You, though, seem to be saying the exact opposite – that you’d be ‘happy to help’ if ‘those interested in restoring democracy’ in America ‘started a civil war’. Don’t you see a contradiction there?

    Given that the civil war you say you’d support would be aimed at destroying Obama’s government, it’d presumably include attempts to kill Obama and his high-level supporters, wouldn’t it? It does seem a bit odd that you’re outraged at charges that the American right incites violence against politicians like Giffords, when at the same time you say you’d be ‘happy’ if the American right started a war against Giffords’ team.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Scott Hamilton (279 comments) says:

    I suppose another aspect of Redbaiter’s position that puzzles me is his claim that a civil war in America would be justified by the need to ‘restore democracy’. Is Redbaiter arguing that the US is now some sort of dictatorship run by Obama? If that’s the case, why have the Republicans just succeeded in taking control of the House? Why is a civil war necessary when the Republicans Redbaiter supports might well take power from Obama next year?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “but I’m not sure if she’d want you in her corner.”

    This snarky remark adds what to your argument exactly?

    “After all, she’s defending herself against the charge that she has supports using violence for political ends.

    She is not defending herself. She has not said anything, and I would take this as an indication of her seeing it as I do, in that such charges are pure politically motivated smears and have no basis whatsoever in fact or reality. There is nothing to connect political rhetoric to Jared Loughner’s act.

    “Don’t you see a contradiction there?”

    I can’t even see that you have presented any circumstances where there might be.

    The logic of your final paragraph escapes me completely. I cannot see that Sarah Palin as a member of the “American right” has ever advocated any action outside that of the ballot box. I honestly cannot get what you are driving at. If you try again, see if you can do it without the smugness and the snarky remarks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    For fuck’s sake you’re getting exceedingly tiresome. I’m sorry but I do not have all night to write responses to someone with such an obtuse viewpoint. I don’t support the Republicans. Why would a right winger do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. reid (15,918 comments) says:

    Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom.

    Why is vilification and violent imagery a “good thing” merely because one is “allowed” to do it by virtue of the constitution?

    Does civility, respect, kindness have value, anymore?

    It’s a dangerous trend and like I said, not limited to the US. Some of the more astute commenters here and I’d name them but for fear of embarrassing them, make a habit of no ad-homina. I don’t practice that but I note those commenters garner more respect here than those who don’t. I tried it once when philu was still here but I just couldn’t stand it after a few days. Force majeur was my own personal excuse.

    But seriously if you’re a national politician I would imagine civility, respect, kindness should come with the territory. They are leaders, they set examples. They set the tone of the debate. This is the problem, isn’t it and the current standard of the national political discourse seems to have worked itself down to the quality of discourse in forums like this and is this a good thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Does civility, respect, kindness have value, anymore?”

    Like “fuck off you waste of space”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Scott Hamilton (279 comments) says:

    Well, we seem to be confusing each other Redbaiter. I was just trying to understand how you’ve gotten to the very extreme position of thinking that the US is some sort of dictatorship, and of saying you’d be ‘happy’ if a civil war was launched there to ‘restore democracy’. You say you don’t support the Republicans: are they complicit in the dictatorship, and therefore also targets for a civil war to restore democracy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    From redbleaters blog

    “There has been a bit of talk around about a civil war. After witnessing the widespread treason the Democrats revealed yesterday, I think its long overdue. These poisonous communist bastards are out to destroy the US from the inside. They have been tolerated too long. Its time to defend the Constitution, or abandon the Constitution. The choice is that simple, and there really is no choice. The Constitution must be defended, and therefore its time to recognize the Democrat Party and their supporters as traitors and fifth columnists and take whatever action is necessary to restore the correct degree of respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it protects”

    Nuff said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Look Scott. I just do not have the time to educate you on what my views might be when you seem so far away from understanding them. Briefly and extremely concisely, my view is that democracy has fallen prey to cultural Marxism, and whereas that may be bad in places like NZ, it is even worse in the US given it is unconstitutional. Broadly because the intent of the US Constitution is to maintain government’s powers over its citizenry in a deliberately weak state, when cultural Marxism demands the opposite. A strong all powerful government and a heavily regulated and controlled citizenry. The Republican Party too is a victim of cultural Marxism and has failed to defend the Constitution. This is what gave rise to the Tea Party and why there needs to be a reversal of political trends in the US. I don’t think the left/ cultural Marxists will allow such a reversal. This is what will prompt a civil war.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    I note with interest that the word “democracy” has no place in rantbaiter’s lexicon. People don’t vote for his loony ideas, therefore they must be brainwashed, therefore there must be violence.

    It would amaze me if anyone took this sad little fascist wannabe seriously, but luckily no-one does.

    (that’s me probably on his little list for elimination of course, but I’m sure it is a long list and includes all the girls who refused to go out with him and the guys at school who laughed)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Scott Hamilton (279 comments) says:

    ‘This is what gave rise to the Tea Party and why there needs to be a reversal of political trends in the US. I don’t think the left/ cultural Marxists will allow such a reversal.’

    So your argument here is that the Tea Party will try to take power peacefully through democratic means and then be stopped by the ‘cultural Marxist’ elite which runs the Democratic and (mostly) the Republican parties, and that point the US will be a dictatorship and it will be necessary for the Tea Party and similar forces to take up arms?

    Given that the Tea Party isn’t being blocked from organising and spreading its views and getting candidates elected, why are you saying that you’d be ‘happy’ to see a civil war start now? Here are your words again:

    ‘There has been a bit of talk around about a civil war. After witnessing the widespread treason the Democrats revealed yesterday, I think its long overdue.’

    How can a civil war to ‘restore democracy’ be ‘long overdue’ when the movement you support is progressing your agenda using democratic means?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “but luckily no-one does.”

    ‘Course not. If they did, they’d probably write tonnes of stuff on blogs trying to discredit me….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Scott, I find your negative presumptions and assumptions so tiresome. It may not be the Tea Party that is the first to take up arms. Have you read of Cloward Piven? Don’t you know of the many armed groups on the left that exist in the US? Or Obama’s plans for his own Guard? Armed conflict could arise by any number of means. In fact it has usually underpinned the rise to power of most communist dictatorships. As for your last question, once again it is based upon a premise that is yet to be seen to be correct.

    Civil war is long overdue. The Constitution has long been trampled. If the left start something, as is most likely, I’m even happy to go down in a hail of lead as long as I can take a few dozen Marxists with me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Methinks you will come to rue those words, RB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Ha.. never Hurf. I never back down. Why just recently the left have been threatening insurrection if Obama is ruled constitutionally ineligible to be President. Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers said that to bring Socialism to America it would be necessary to round up and exterminate 25 million capitalists. The Black Panthers who protected Obama at the voting booths have openly advocated insurrection and the mass murder of whites. Yet it is Sarah Palin with markers on her campaign map that is facing the criticism.

    You see, the most important need we have is to prevent the left from framing the debate. A big part of this lies in pouring scorn upon the conventions they would enforce. It is good to see little weasels like Sonic gasp for air when his presumptions of wrong doing are challenged. We are meant to cower and apologise. We should never do it. Outrage them and attack them. We should always attack. The status quo is not good enough, Things must be reversed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    Chronic is back.. ffs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. emmess (1,368 comments) says:

    Does civility, respect, kindness have value, anymore?

    Tell it to these guys
    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

    And shouldn’t Martyn Bradbury change his nickname and TV show to something with a little less ‘violent imagery’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “if Obama is ruled constitutionally ineligible to be President.”

    He did win an election you know.

    “I’m even happy to go down in a hail of lead”

    I’d substitute derision for lead in that sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Scott Hamilton (279 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, you say that my claim that the Tea Party is able to use the institutions of democracy – eg, freedom of speech and elections – to advance its agenda is a ‘premise’ which is ‘yet to be seen to be correct’. Surely it’s anything but a premise, though – the Tea Party uses freedom of speech to campaign vociferously in a variety of ways, backs candidates for various posts at various levels of government, and in general acts as a political party, or a faction within a political party, in a democratic system. Whether or not the Tea Party succeeds in winning enough support to realise much of its agenda is of course another thing – the group’s arguments might fail to win over Americans, the candidates it backs might be defeated by other candidates, and so on. But quite clearly the Tea Party is pursuing its ends using various democratic institutions. And it’s had some success inside those institutions.

    What I’m trying to work out is how you can believe that the US is a dictatorship, and why you’d be ‘happy’ to see a civil war, with the unimaginable loss of life that would create in a nuclear power, to ‘restore democracy’.

    I’m also curious as to when you think the US became a dictatorship. So far the only evidence you’ve given for the dictatorship that supposedly exists under Obama is the regulation of the economy by government. You reckon that government regulation such as the sort that exists in the US and government spending on things like health care and social welfare count as ‘Marxism’. But if this is the case, then hasn’t the US been Marxist for a long, long time – since, at least, the days of FDR? The US economy was far more statist under postwar leaders like Kennedy and LBJ and Nixon. Would it have been acceptable to take up arms against those leaders?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “So far the only evidence you’ve given for the dictatorship”

    I’m sorry. I didn’t realise I was on trial. I was trying to excuse you of your proclaimed ignorance in as few a words as possible. (An endeavour you should try and emulate.) This is a blog and this is the comments section. Its not really the place do discuss things at the level of a university thesis. However, I read from your response that your ignorance (meant in the kindest way of course) is apparently too deep to become knowledge other than by a lengthy discourse that I have no interest in or time to pursue. I suggest you read some of my other writings as I have been over this before. I just don’t feel like dealing with further interrogations and a mass of contradictory questions, incorrect assertions and poorly founded premises at this time of night. Sorry. I suggest you in future provide a point of view rather than adopt the posture of an interrogator. It might be shorter way to the assistance you confess you need.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Scott Hamilton (279 comments) says:

    Well, it’s just that I’m a little old-fashioned in my understanding of dictatorship, Redbaiter – I tend to expect things like the absence of a free press, the absence of free elections, the execution of dissidents, the imprisonment of opponents, and so on, and those things are fairly thin on the ground in the US. You seem to think that the existence some elements of a welfare state is enough to count as evidence of a dictatorship, and good enough reason to start a civil war. I don’t think many people, either in New Zealand or America, will agree.

    But of course you’re not serious about starting a war. You won’t take up arms, and neither will any of the other armchair warriors who characterise Obama as some sort of cross between Hitler and Stalin and issue calls to arms. The sort of apocalyptic fantasising you’re engaging in here has become a sort of cultural phenomenon, and the people who indulge in it are as often on the left as on the right. With your straining to see a dictatorship whether there is none and an apocalypse in the offing you very much remind me of Rob Gilchrist, who wrapped his apocalyptic fantasies up in vaguely left-wing rhetoric, and of certain primitivist anarchists who are always predicting the end of the world as we know it. Don De Lillo captured the phenomenon very well in Libra.

    The challenge for the left and also for the right is to sideline this sort of self-indulgent roleplaying and raise the level of political discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    I see, so when your posturing as an interrogator fails, you become the jack booted accuser and insulter.

    I have never used the word dictatorship. Once again, you use words and premises that identify your complete inability to think about this issue other than on a very superficial level. You suffer unknowingly from a good dose of cultural Marxism yourself I think.

    I gave you the regard I would give a serious conversationalist, but it appears you were attempting a game of “gotcha” and when that failed, you have nothing but cheap and shallow insults. Disappointing, but not entirely unexpected, given the air of smugness that pervaded your other comments.

    “Don De Lillo captured the phenomenon very well in Libra.”

    How ostentatious. This is Kiwiblog and this is a comment thread you vain posturing patronising loon. Get a life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Scott Hamilton (279 comments) says:

    If you want to respond to some of my points, Redbaiter – by furnishing me with some scrap of evidence for the proposition that America is no longer a democracy, for instance, or by explaining why, if Obama’s health plan makes him a communist dictator, LBJ’s much more ambitious Great Society programme didn’t make him the same thing, and legitimise armed struggle against him – then I’m all ears. I’m all for ‘serious conversation’.

    I was just explaining how you strike me so far, on the basis of this exchange and the material I see on your site: as someone who, like Rob Gilchrist (you might have missed the link to the review of Libra with the references to him which I posted), is rather too keen on the idea of himself as a participant in an apocalyptic struggle against an overwhelming evil.
    Reality is made to measure up to the fantasy. Gilchrist proclaimed that New Zealand was a fascist state on the most ludicrous grounds; in this thread you liken Obama’s America to a ‘communist dictatorship’ for similarly silly reasons. Gilchrist liked to pretend he’d been in the SAS, and to talk tough about revolutionary war; I suspect your talk of participating in the civil war you’d be ‘happy’ to see break out in the US has the same fantasy quality (no one who was remotely serious about such intentions would announce it on the internet).

    There are people like you on virtually every major political forum now – over at indymedia, for instance, there is currently a left-wing version of you running amok: she thinks New Zealand is some sort of military state, and advocates starting a civil war. As I said, the challenge for the right and for the left is try to sideline this sort of fantasy politics, and raise the level of our political discourse. At the moments the fantasy roleplayers, who in the real world form a tiny fraction of the population, are disrupting online discussion on both sides of the divide. Indymedia is as much of a mess as this comments thread.

    I’m sure how unknowing my imbibing of ‘cultural Marxism’ was, btw:
    http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/catalogue/book.asp?id=1204782
    I’ll keep a copy of the book for you…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    Farrar’s Law: As a Kiwiblog thread approaches 100, the probability of Redbaiter taking it over and swearing at other punters approaches 1.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom.

    It is such a good thing that politicians are held in high esteem, the Tea Parties are government admiration groups, the economy is humming along nicely, pork barrel spending is a quaint historical anomaly, there are virtually no poor and homeless, airport security is a pleasure, and wars have all succeeded so well they are a thing of the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    If our right-wing friends are feeling unjustly blamed for the actions of an extremist Maybe they can ask a Muslim for advice on how to deal with that.

    xxx

    S

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    Sarah Palin silent amid the blame game

    Ms Palin’s silence may be more than just a simple lack of words now that her beloved gun imagery has been ruled beyond the pale.

    She may simply not know what to say in the face of a tragedy that has focused a harsh light on the kind of hateful rhetoric for which she is renowned.

    Her spokeswoman, Rebecca Mansour, did not help her when she went on television to claim that the crosshairs on her map were not rifle sights at all, but “a surveyor’s symbol”. Unhappily for Ms Palin, the internet remembers. Eagle-eyed bloggers have retrieved a Facebook post she wrote in March last year – three days after the map was published – clarifying its message for anyone left in doubt.

    “The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons – your Big Guns – to drive to the hole,” Ms Palin wrote.

    “Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win.”

    Fair or not, Palin may be experiencing a new version of an old quote – “Live by the social media, fall by the social media”. A once prolific twit is finding it impossible to hide in her silence.

    David Frum, president George W. Bush’s former speechwriter, weighed in yesterday with a seven-point plan for Ms Palin, outlining how she might have responded to the shooting in the light of her appalling imagery. “They’re laying flowers at the congressional office of Gabrielle Giffords,” he wrote. “Any reason you can’t join them?”

    Ms Palin’s problem, he went on, was that she and her aides did not truly understand the question before them. “That question was not, ‘Are you culpable for the shooting?’ ” he wrote. “The question was, ‘Having put this unfortunate image on the record, can you respond to the shooting in a way that demonstrates your larger humanity? And possibly also your potential to serve as leader of the entire nation?’ ”

    I think that’s a fair point – Palin is no more responsible for the shooting than many others who have contributed to the toxic political climate in the US, but she has chosen a high profile high risk game, how she deals with a bad glare of publicity could be telling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    …blamed for the actions of an extremist…

    Good old Sonic, slippery as ever with modifying words and language to suit the argument.

    The left is blaming the language of the right for the actions of an insane person.

    And, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, many of the same left-wing voices demand that a similar link not be made between Muslim extremists and the language surrounding them – even when many have quite rationally explained the link themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. andrei (2,499 comments) says:

    Do you search the internet all day looking for moronic crap to post Pete George?

    I think that’s a fair point – Palin is no more responsible for the shooting than many others who have contributed to the toxic political climate in the US, but she has chosen a high profile high risk game, how she deals with a bad glare of publicity could be telling.

    In your dreams.

    The only thing that is telling. Pete George, is the way a news story about a guy so far off this planet that he probably doesn’t even know who Sarah Palin is has been twisted to become a story about Sarah Palin.

    It smells of panic to me – some people are seriously scared of her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    A panicked Palin silence? Whether she likes or deserves it or not, she is a part of the story. Publicity seekers cannot control when the publicity may seek them.

    If she is the great perceptive ordinary people’s person some people claim then she should be spooked by this – not only because of what political climate change she might be helping promote, but that she is a likely nutter target as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    A once prolific twit is finding it impossible to hide in her silence.

    Given that you go on to quote Mr Frum I presume he’s the “prolific twit”, but what may surprise you is that he is one of Ms Palin’s many enemies within the GOP. He’s made it clear that he holds her in as low esteem as you do, has been sticking it to her for the better part of two years, and is part of the “No Labels” group that has sunk without media trace since its launch.

    As a result I doubt Ms Palin will have much trust in his “seven point plan” advice, both from the perspective of being genuine and being smart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Peter George said…
    Publicity seekers cannot control when the publicity may seek them.

    And this is from someone who had posted 8640 messages here on Kiwiblog, doing nothing all day, but sits @ his/her computer desk posting messages here, because he is bored. A person who does that is an attention seeker. Anyway, this is what Pete Geroge does when he’s not @ his computer desk (ie, when he/she wants to take a break from posting messages all day here @ Kiwiblog). Anyway, the name of the dancer on that youtube vid is Peter Haroldson George (no kidding).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    he holds her in as low esteem as you do

    I don’t think she has shown anything like the necessary qualities to be POTUS yet if that’s what you mean.

    What sort of esteem do you hold her in Tom? Do you think she should go to ground and try and ride this out, and hope that her part of the story will blow over?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. RRM (9,435 comments) says:

    Scott – Redbaiter’s fundamental dilemma is, no right party is sufficiently to the right to be satisfactory to him. He will be fighting his civil war in perpetuity.

    Clearly therefore, any civil war would inevitably result in some new gummint that is still not right enough for the lunatic’s taste. It follows that a second civil war would soon be required to remove the cultural marxists who – inexplicably – rose to the top and assumed power immediately after the civil war to kill all cultural marxists. This would – presumably – continue until the only government remaining consisted of Redbaiter and some kind of anointed inner circle much like the governments of Mugabe, Chavez and all those whom Redbaiter claims to despise, but who are really living Redbaiter’s dream – imposing the “right” sort of government, whether people resist or not.

    A lot of other people on these threads are in the same predicament, however, most of them stand out much less visibly as they do not have websites glorifying the shooting and killing of those who disagree with them, and advocating for civil war / genocide in order to bring in the “proper” sort of government, i.e., one he likes.

    You can see a weak version of this in the way National / Act lost the support of the nutters on here within weeks of forming the Government after the 2008 election, falling from being our great white hope to a bunch of despicable turncoats with remarkable speed as they failed to create an anarchic tax haven within the first 90 days….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. thedavincimode (6,530 comments) says:

    “I’m even happy to go down in a hail of lead as long as I can take a few dozen Marxists with me.”

    Is that your most pretentious wank yet m’baiter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. big bruv (13,227 comments) says:

    “I’m even happy to go down in a hail of lead as long as I can take a few dozen Marxists with me.”

    Tell me Russell, how does your statement differ from what we might expect from a muslim suicide bomber?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    I think I should have avoided dipping even a toe into the “debate” about Ms Palin, given that that was the original debate framing objective of the smear. Plenty of time for discussing her strengths and weaknesses as the GOP primaries approach.

    In the meantime I shall remain focused on the narrative of the left’s underhanded attempts to pin these killings on the language of the right, on the double standards and hypocrisy involved, and on the role played by the MSM in all this – which is actually the topic of the thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. scrubone (3,044 comments) says:

    I don’t think she has shown anything like the necessary qualities to be POTUS yet if that’s what you mean.

    Yea… but given Obama’s in office that’s no longer a requirement now is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. scrubone (3,044 comments) says:

    Do you think she should go to ground and try and ride this out, and hope that her part of the story will blow over?

    Given the ridiculous nature of the “connection”, why would she dignify the hatred?

    Fact is here, one leftist crazy person shot a left wing politician.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    Yea… but given Obama’s in office that’s no longer a requirement now is it?

    More reason for the next one to be more capable I’d have thought.

    Fact is here, one leftist crazy person shot a left wing politician.

    Another fact is that as a result of the shooting many people are talking like crazy about the political climate, and Palin is a voluntary part of that. She (like Obama) is treading very carefully – and silence may not be seen to be a good enough response.

    Perception in politics is important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    I noticed this posting yesterday on a blog site:

    If the Left wants to eliminate at a stroke the vast majority of heated, hated right-wing rhetoric there’s a very simple way to do that: give up.

    Get out of the way. Stop advocating the violation of individual rights every day in every way. Stop trying to get legislation passed that steals private property for the purpose of funding your favorite social engineering goals. Stop extolling the alleged virtue of interpreting the U.S. Constitution in ways that further Progressive goals. End your advocacy of coercion through government.

    Your cause is not noble, your methods are not virtuous, your philosophy is not just. Your ideas are more than mistaken; they’re immoral, impractical, and unconstitutional. Change your philosophy and change your behavior and ‘the Right’ will have no longer have an incentive to fight back against your support for squishy tyranny.

    Until then, you can expect the rhetoric to continue. A vocal segment of the American people will simply no longer sit back passively and watch their freedom get corroded away, one bad edict at a time.

    Would that language itself be cast as extremist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t call that extremist, it’s more like dreamist and dopist.

    It sounds like my way is the only way, you’re completely wrong, I’m completely right, you’re evil, I’m good, all you have to do is change completely and pray to my god my way and then the world will be fixed sort of naievity that seems prevalent in parts of the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Once again, Tom Hunter gets the “Banging Your Head Against A Brick Wall Feels Soooo Good” award for even attempting discourse with Pete George.

    Mr. George typifies the kind of personality that the left target. Gullible, uninformed, narcissistic, psychologically susceptible to their message and generally easily manipulated by their propaganda. he’s in so deep you will never drag him out. His whole presence here is underpinned by a subconcious desire to be on stage. He has nothing to say, and only the sick mantras of his political allies to repeat.

    Kiwiblog is virtually indistinguishable from the Standard these days. Most threads full of the deranged rants of psychologically maladjusted leftist losers or twisted homosexuals like Big Bruv and RRM. The constant presence of Pete George though, with 8645 posts in record time, is one of those most responsible for this similarity. Kiwiblog’s own Jared Loughner. What’s in your backyard under that tent Pete?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “in this thread you liken Obama’s America to a ‘communist dictatorship’ for similarly silly reasons.”

    As this seems to be the basis of your really strange rants, maybe you could show where I make this comparison? The reason for the left’s success in transforming most western societies lies in the fact that they have been able to make the changes necessary without any likeness to the kind of absurd examples you have made, (and by that absurdity, demonstrated just how far away you are from understanding something so simple.)

    You’re just a fatuous self absorbed Progressive academic with a sick obsession for demonstrating a nonexistent intellectual superiority. Go indulge you precious and boring preoccupations elsewhere.

    And take a course in conciseness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    Hmm

    Well I just wondered since it was posted on a local blog that is pro-abortion, pro gay-issues, and ferociously anti-religious – Not PC: How to Eliminate “Inflammatory Right-wing Rhetoric”?

    I think the writer may have actually been tweaking those on the left complaining about rhetoric, in the sense that he’s putting forward a reductio ad absurdum demand that he knows will never be accepted – the implication being that he won’t accept it either and that there is no reason he should.

    Quite a contrast to the latest plea for reason and civility in the NYT, with a guest editorial:

    We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.

    The writer of that lofty piece is a Democrat who got booted from Congress last November, one Paul Kanjorski and his appearance means that I’m going to have to stop tagging the NYT as a paper dedicated to cleverly pushing left-wing memes – since its publication demonstrates that they’re now too stupid to even do basic background checks:

    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.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Manolo (13,339 comments) says:

    Another good piece from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073831200284192.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Manolo (13,339 comments) says:

    Attack is the best form of defense. Limbaugh is no shrinking violet and he is always prepared to dish it out to his political opponents: http://www.rollcall.com/news/-202289-1.html?ET=rollcall:e9628:80104117a:&st=email&pos=epol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Thanks for those links Manolo. A good read.

    Quote-

    To use a tragedy such as the one in Tucson on Saturday as a means of attacking one’s political opponents, to accuse them of at least accidental complicity in it, is itself well outside the bounds of proper political rhetoric and even of common decency. It also denies historical reality.

    Unquote

    The bit about common decency is the most appropriate. The left have demonstrated exactly what lowlife they are and this will create a backlash against them they have yet to understand. More and more people are becoming aware that the bulk of the media are just a political force for the far left.

    And Rush Limbaugh is dead right. Previous to the Arizona killings, Democrat strategists were already talking of the need for such an event to boost Obama’s ratings and damage his critics. They are scum. Just the worst kind of scum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. eszett (2,332 comments) says:

    In the meantime I shall remain focused on the narrative of the left’s underhanded attempts to pin these killings on the language of the right, on the double standards and hypocrisy involved, and on the role played by the MSM in all this – which is actually the topic of the thread.

    Yes, tom, as you have posted here before, you are wilfully and knowingly shutting your eyes and ignoring anything the right does, they can do no wrong. Just point towards the left and never admit that they may have a point. Now that’s not a double standard and hypocritical stance in itself.

    Some good reads.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2280711/

    Conservative entertainers like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin like to titillate their audiences with hints of justified violence, including frequent reminders that they are armed and dangerous. Palin went so far as to put a target on someone who subsequently got shot. Whether or not the man who fired the gun was inspired by Palin isn’t the point. The point is that you shouldn’t paint targets on people, even in metaphor, or jest.

    First you rile up psychotics with inflammatory language about tyranny, betrayal, and taking back the country. Then you make easy for them to get guns. But if you really want trouble, you should also make it hard for them to get treatment for mental illness. I don’t know if Loughner had health insurance, but he falls into a pool of people who often go uninsured—not young enough to be covered by parents (until the health-care bill’s coverage of twentysomethings kicked in a few months ago), not old enough for Medicare, not poor enough for Medicaid. If such a person happens to have a history of mental illness, he will be effectively uninsurable. To get treatment, he actually has to commit a crime. If Republicans succeed in repealing the Obama health care bill, that’s how it will remain.

    Again, none of this says that Tea Party caused the Tucson tragedy, only that its politics increased the odds of something like it happening. It was in criticizing writers on his own side for their naivete about communism that George Orwell wrote, “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” Today it is the right that amuses itself with violent chat and proclaims an injured innocence when its flammable words blow up.

    Emphasis mine.

    Also good:

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/81155/how-the-giffords-tragedy-made-me-anti-anti-anti-political-hate-speech

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    First you rile up psychotics with inflammatory language about tyranny, betrayal, and taking back the country.

    And you, eszett, like Slate, just can’t let go of your imaginary sand castle of causality on which you have supposedly built the rock of hypocrisy and double standards from which you’re preaching.

    So let’s spell it out for you – again, for the umpteenth time:

    there is no connection whatsoever between “inflammatory language” and the actions of a psychotic. Almost by definition anything can set off a psychotic and therefore there is no reason to think that “violent” metaphors should be withheld from political discourse.

    I’m ignoring “my” own sides rhetoric because I do not accept your bullshit argument about cause and effect.

    The reason that you and Slate are now so pissy and changing to other narratives, is not only that your arguments have failed but that the backlash of listing the almost endless amounts of leftist “hate speech” against the right showed that even if the argument had been accepted it would have been you hoisted on the petard of your own hypocrisy and double standards.

    You should be very grateful that I and the most of the right have refused to accept your silly, non-evidential argument. Had we done so we could have had a lot of fun with statements such as .. inflammatory language about tyranny, betrayal, and taking back the country... That such a thing can be written by Slate after eight years of hearing exactly that sort of shit from the US left shows only that they have absolutely no sense of irony, let alone shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. eszett (2,332 comments) says:

    there is no connection whatsoever between “inflammatory language” and the actions of a psychotic. Almost by definition anything can set off a psychotic and therefore there is no reason to think that “violent” metaphors should be withheld from political discourse.

    Funny how you contradict yourself in a single paragraph. First you claim there is no connection, then you say anything could have set him off, which would logically include the “inflammatory language”.

    But violent metaphors, a climate of politcal discourse where political opponents are “enemies” that need to be eliminated, crosshairs and list of candidates, Giffords complaining about the consequences of the crosshairs, candidates calling for voters to join him in a M16 shooting to help remove Giffords, yes, you can choose to ignore all these and say these have the same probability of sending off a mentally ill man as much as say listening to bed time stories. Or believe that these had nothing to do whatsoever with the choice of his targets and he could have chosen anyone else. But he didn’t. He chose someone that was already identified as a target.

    Yes, you are right, there is no evidence that he even saw that map, let alone acted upon it, but doesn’t the shooting even make you pause and ask whether it was such a good idea to crosshairs up in the first place?
    And of course you can also join the Palin aide who claims that there weren’t crosshairs but surveyors symbols

    And yes, you are right to bring up anything that the left have done similarly. And you would no doubt be far more aggressive about it, had one of those things turned so violent. If a mentally ill democratic voter would have brought a gun to a town hall meeting and shot a republican candidate, you would have blasted Obama for his “they bring a knife, we bring a gun” comment.

    Again, as I said before, there is no evidence whatsoever of a causal link between the map, the rhetoric and the shooting. However to argue that it should be verboten to mention any of this is pretty poor.

    By saying there is no connection whatsoever you are just sticking your head in the sand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    Bloody hell. This is almost a replay of part of an interview with Mark Halperin of Time on MSNBC:

    “I just want to single out one thing. I think the media and the politicians have behaved pretty well so far. I’m worried about the anger of the right-wing commentariat,” Halperin said. “Fox and George Will and other conservatives are in some cases justifiably upset at liberals, but they’re turning this back into the standard operating procedure of ‘all this is war and fodder for content’ rather than trying to bring the country together.”

    “Wait a second,” Scarborough responded. “I think they would say that you have that backwards, that a shooting was turned into fodder to attack conservatives.”

    Halperin: “And, I already made that criticism, as well. They’re right, but rather than seizing on it and turning the other cheek, they’re back at their war stations. that’s not going to help us.”

    Shades of one of my earlier responses: we on the left are going to smear you for political purposes. Just shut up and accept it.

    As the commentator then notes:

    The conversation then pivoted from a discussion of the actual facts to yet another lecture on rhetoric, with Scarborough hoping conservatives see it as a “wake-up call” on rhetoric even though he had just established that there was no connection between rhetoric and the shooting.

    The meme is too good to let go of.

    And you would no doubt be far more aggressive about it, had one of those things turned so violent. If a mentally ill democratic voter would have brought a gun to a town hall meeting and shot a republican candidate, you would have blasted Obama for his “they bring a knife, we bring a gun” comment.

    That’s just you taking the disgusting smear that your side has already made and projecting it onto my hypothetical future actions, for the second time too. I did not respond to that earlier, the reason being that I would simply repeat the argument I have already made; that I see no connection that can be established between the rhetoric or even the “toxic political environment” and the actions of a pyschotic.

    And in fact this is not even hypothetical; there already was a Republican shot and killed in the attack. Yet nobody on the right that I’m aware of made the claim – even at the start – that this was due to the comments of Obama or any other Democrat, although there has since been some fun at the left’s expense in a “for-the-sake-of-argument” approach.

    By saying there is no connection whatsoever you are just sticking your head in the sand.

    By saying there is no connection whatsoever I am simply sticking with what can be proved. You are saying that there might be a specific connection without suggesting any way that this could ever be proved, which I don’t hold against you since we are dealing with a psychotic: no rationale could ever be proved. You did imply that you’re hot on logic, no?

    For the sake of argument, even if such proof could be established, you are setting yourself up for a unresolvable solution in lala land, where a such can also be plucked out of the thin air of “anything”. But perhaps you prefer a world that enables you to make whatever claim and apply whatever solution you feel will be most damaging to your political and ideological opponents?

    Funny how you contradict yourself in a single paragraph. First you claim there is no connection, then you say anything could have set him off, which would logically include the “inflammatory language”

    Since we’re discussing an irrational and illogical person I didn’t think such a self-evident phrase as – …that can be established – would have to be included. Funny that you would resort to such sophistry to try and win a single debating point, so let’s go back to the original DPF post:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    The Modus Operandi of the Left: Persistence in Propaganda.

    But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.

    From “War Propaganda”, volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler.

    Didn’t they learn their lesson well? – and don’t we see abundant examples of it by Leftists both in this thread and in wider society in their attempting to make mud stick to the Right in general, and Palin in particular, over this recent tragedy. Leftists truly are devoid of morality and values; the depths to which they are prepared to plumb knows no limit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. scrubone (3,044 comments) says:

    Again, none of this says that Tea Party caused the Tucson tragedy, only that its politics increased the odds of something like it happening.

    If I handle a gun carelessly, that increases the chances of myself and those around me getting shot.

    But if someone on the other side of the farm gets shot, the fact that I have increased the odds has nothing to do with the fact it actually happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. wat dabney (3,655 comments) says:

    Again, none of this says that Tea Party caused the Tucson tragedy, only that its politics increased the odds of something like it happening.

    Huh? How does that work then? The Democrat/Republican duopoly imposes an ever-increasing activist fascist agenda – all of which is completely unconstitutional and all inevitably enforced through coercion and the threat of violence – and the Tea Party which objects to this is blamed when one of the thugs gets shot by a retard.

    They – the Washington mafia – all deserve to be strung up from the nearest lamposts. I didn’t have a minute of silence for that witch, I had a double whisky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. wat dabney (3,655 comments) says:

    In a free society, we’re going to be subject to people like this; I prefer this to the alternative.

    John Green, father of the murdered girl.

    Bravo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    They – the Washington mafia – all deserve to be strung up from the nearest lamposts. I didn’t have a minute of silence for that witch, I had a double whisky.

    Oh great. That’s just fucking great.

    Look Wat, we may agree on many things and I can’t deny how angry this smear job has made me. But that’s a damned cruel, shitty thing to say. Politicians like Giffords and others are as much driven by a few simple desires of ordinary people as by anything else.

    I doubt 1 in 50 of those buggers actually have any ideology worth a damn. They just use the system to keep on getting elected and people allow themselves to be bribed and fooled by what they want to believe: that healthcare and retirement funding is “free” and so forth.

    You want to blame somebody, blame the voters. Blame right-wingers for going along to get along and being unwilling to really fight against this crap, including the emotive smear jobs.

    As to your quote from John Green: yeah, that is brave in the face of unspeakable loss and it’s a positive thing to think and say. Worth remembering wouldn’t you say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. wat dabney (3,655 comments) says:

    Fascist gets shot.

    Good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.